Evolution

If Darwin’s theory is correct, why is the human population increasing?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “If Darwin’s theory is correct, then there is always fierce competition within each species in which only a few survive. Why is the human population increasing?”

This question is an example of someone reading something about what someone else proposes, not to learn from them or to understand what they mean by what they write or say, but to find reasons to be critical and dismissive.

This behaviour is quite common on social media and in communication dynamics everywhere.

The attitude displayed within this question is an example of an attitude governed by catering to one’s ego. The Dunning-Kruger arrogance would be astounding if it were not so prevalent among humans so entirely subservient to their egotistical compulsions.

The audacity of ignorance reeks throughout this question, beginning with “If Darwin’s theory is correct.”

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection has transformed the world through a deeper understanding of the mechanics of life. It has not only stood the test of time but spawned innumerable initiatives and several new branches of science. Yet, some under-educated schmuck on social media declares their suspicions of its value while providing a badly butchered rendition of a god-awful misinterpretation of it on a fundamental level.

This attitude is why many believers are often considered abusively ignorant.

This attitude demonstrated by so many people in many contexts is why conflicts occur between people.

If you’re going to cite Darwin’s theory, then at least try to understand it correctly on the most basic level.

Others have gently corrected this arrogance of misinterpretation and have convincingly explained how and why it’s a disservice to scientific progress. I want to focus my venting on this arrogance so often displayed by people who assume their juvenile grasp of something they haven’t understood is magically superior to a mind that has transformed human society on such a fundamental level in such a dramatic fashion.

This style of ignorance is why we struggle everywhere in every endeavour, whether scientific or political, as human society gets bogged down by idiocrats.

This isn’t even close to the worst example of a Dunning-Kruger level of arrogance, but the timing was fluky, and so, lucky you.

I have no idea what the communication dynamics within a high school environment are these days. I can, however, easily recall how the arrogance displayed by this question by students would often be met with a comeuppance of some sort by the instructor.

If you were a scientist yourself, never mind that you would not have concocted such a butchered misinterpretation, you would still not present yourself with the kind of arrogance displayed within this question.

There would be some respect in your tone for the work done by someone so significant to human history and the evolution of our society. You would be aware of the benefits you have been living with as a consequence of his work, if not on a detailed level, but on a level that shows some appreciation for its value.

Your lack of knowledge of his work is not justification for your arrogance. It does, however, scream your ignorance to the world, and that should be an embarrassment to you while it isn’t, nor is it for all the many who barf up similar expressions of unearned arrogance.

Over and over again, and every day, a believer pulls out their cynically dismissive arrogance gun to shoot themselves in the foot in the same way you have.

Here’s a clue for you, though… in case you want to demonstrate some respect in future for someone who outclasses you from beyond the grave, this is how you would broach your confusion over what you don’t understand with a modicum of humility and respect for the work of a significant contributor to humanity’s progress:

Instead of huffing your ego like this,

“If Darwin’s theory is correct, then there is always fierce competition within each species in which only a few survive. Why is the human population increasing?”

I’d recommend reigning it in with something demonstrating a little more awareness of the limits of your knowledge with something like this:

“Why is the human population increasing if there is always fierce competition within each species and in which only a few survive?”

Do you notice the difference, or is it too subtle for you? Is this response to your question an example of being too sensitive over something that doesn’t matter to you? — If that’s how you feel, you sorely misunderstand why the world is always in conflict. The difference between the two examples of word choices can be between reaching an agreement within a sensitive negotiation and going to war against a new enemy.

In this case, the subject is not critical to resolving anything. It is, however, an example of how often cynically dismissive arrogance pushes people past their tolerance limits.

In essence, this answer isn’t even so much for your benefit as it is for every other believer who decides they can dismiss 165 years of scientific progress based on being too lazy to educate themselves properly on a subject they believe their cartoon degree of self-assuredness compensates for their lack of interest in doing their homework.

It would be best if you could manage some gratitude for so many people who gave you polite answers while entertaining your somewhat mild rudeness in this case. Like Chinese water torture, however, enough of it eventually breaks people’s ability to be polite in the face of self-serving delusions like believing your gut feelings trump the hard work of countless professionals who have dedicated their lives to improving all of ours.

Eventually, you will run into a pushy someone like me who will call you out on your disrespect because that seems to be the “skill god gave me.” I’m sure you might feel it’s not a pleasant experience to find yourself confronted by this kind of venting… truth be told, I wish I weren’t triggered into a need to vent in this manner, but that’s the world we live in.

C’est la vie.

I feel better now, and I’m sorry if you don’t. I hope you pass on this message if you read it to understand it rather than look for reasons to dismiss it.

Are evolutionists telling the truth?

The original and full format of the question this post responds to is as follows: “Are evolutionists telling the truth, they say abiogenesis is not evolution, then they say life evolved from a single cell, isn’t the false abiogenesis life from a single cell, can they make up their minds?”

The first few times I saw this question, I thought it odd, but it could be answered easily and quickly. I noticed it already had several answers, and I didn’t feel I could contribute anything differently to an answer, so I decided not to answer it.

It kept knocking at the back of my mind, so I checked the profile because I expected another MAGA to be behind it. I was wrong. The querent is a self-determined and self-made business owner who’s had some success through honest efforts. He even understands how Donald Trump is an evil person.

This confused me more, but I still decided not to block him and forget about the question. Here I am, though, writing a response to it. Talk about compulsion.

What I don’t get is the question itself. If one were to ask Donald Trump if he was telling the truth, he would most certainly either assert he was telling the truth or dodge responsibility for uttering an untruth as he did with his lie about Haitians eating pets. He didn’t deny lying about it, nor did he address his statement directly, but claimed he saw someone on television. He then quickly claimed he didn’t care about it while ignoring how anyone could say anything on television, particularly when that “someone” isn’t even identified. He didn’t say which program he allegedly witnessed someone making that claim. He merely distanced himself from responsibility for making that claim by claiming he witnessed someone making it on television in such a way as to grant the claim credibility. He made vague and rambling assertions about the claim while dismissing the television news reporter whose research debunked the claim.

This leads me to why I feel compelled to answer this question:

If you didn’t trust atheists to tell you the truth about the difference between “abiogenesis” and “evolution,” then why are you asking atheists if they’re telling you the truth?

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

As a human being who happens to be an atheist, I can’t fathom why someone would lie about this distinction between two words that can easily be verified through so many other sources, including every dictionary of the English language, every encyclopedia, and everywhere these topics are broached.

It’s the kind of question that can easily be verified through countless resources, yet here you are, asking if the people you don’t trust to tell you the truth if they’re telling you the truth.

This reminds me of the aphorism of a broken clock being correct twice daily in the form of a quote by Ronald Reagan, who said, “Trust but verify.”

Suppose you don’t trust your doctor’s diagnosis. In that case, it makes more sense to get a different doctor to examine you to determine their diagnosis to contrast against your first doctor’s diagnosis. It seems highly irrational to ask your first doctor for a different diagnosis.

This is why we have independent watchdogs and fact-checkers in society, to verify independently the information provided by any single source.

Although I practically never watched “The Apprentice,” I did get pieces of episodes early on in its history, and I’m still gob-smacked by an incident in which Omarosa was recorded making a statement while on the telephone that she denied even though the recording of her making that statement was presented to her.

I’ve never understood that.

I could never do that.

If a recording of me saying something were presented, I could not fathom denying my making that statement. That was a feeling I had before the advent of AI fraudulence, so I may respond differently if I were ever in such a situation — which I doubt could or would happen.

I’m here responding to this question because I’m stumbling over how someone could be so confused about the difference between fact and fiction that they don’t know how to approach addressing their confusion beyond going back to the source of their confusion to get more reasons to be more confused.

I’m pretty sure that most answers you’ve gotten from most people will be viewed as dishonest answers by more atheists you don’t trust to tell you the truth about the difference between “abiogenesis” and “evolution.”

I could understand your question more easily if you were deliberately trolling for reactions, and that was my first thought about your question because you used the word “evolutionist.” That’s a word invented by people who deliberately seek provocation or are simply ignorant of language and don’t care about the truth of words as it is presented within the meaning they carry.

In other words, for someone who wants to convey that they care about the truth, the first word in your question is a lie.

You don’t seem malicious, and you don’t seem so utterly under-educated or mentally incapacitated to such a degree as not to be capable of discerning the truth of the matter within such a simple question that is beyond simple to verify.

It’s clear from your question that you don’t grasp basic biology. Still, even so, the rambling rationale offered up to justify your mistrust, including the accusation of being inconsistent, is a wholly fictitious scenario playing out in your mind.

I don’t understand how you could not just type both words into a search box to get your answers independently from those you mistrust.

That makes me wonder about your cognitive health and your need for human interaction. Both explanations seem to fill the gaps in my confusion about this straightforward question.

It feels like this question is less of an example of posing questions one wants answers to and more of an example of why people participate on social media — for social interaction.

We no longer spend as much time in person with each other as we once did before technology became our interpersonal brokerage system. That indicates something of value that we have lost in the process.

It certainly is true that our reach is now global. Those of us stuck in dank environments with toxic people can at least breathe a little bit by encountering other minds that can echo our own to allow us to each find our tribe. Still, we’re missing out on something fundamental to the human condition.

That’s why this question has preoccupied my consciousness, and the process of answering it has been more beneficial to me than it could be for the querent who plays at getting answers to their questions in a public forum.

Answering this question makes it easier to understand trolls like “Billy Flowers.” They are desperately lonely people who have been so used to gaining negative attention that’s all they know. They don’t care how they get their attention because they’re so lonely that any attention they get validates their existence beyond the level of disposable trash that our systems in modern society treat us all like.

This question makes me sad, but at least I now understand why.