Some agreement. Evolution definitely works along horrible lines. “The lovely forms of the deer were sculpted by the teeth of wolves.” M.A. Foster.
Evolution works by starvation; by predation; by epidemics; by habitat collapse. It’s a “last-man-standing” cage match of the species. It’s grossly amoral, perhaps even immoral. It (absurdly) inspired “Social Darwinism” which is unquestionably immoral.
Evolutionary algorithms are an interesting way of solving certain kinds of problems, but it’s not too far removed from the “brute force” method. One fascinating experiment asked a computer simulation to “evolve” locomotion, and what came out was a weird kind of “shoveling” motion with a rear-facing piston. The piston extended and contracted, and the computer-designed-organism sort of “inched” forward. Hideous!
One can hardly blame religious people for a preference for intelligent design. The forces of evolution are not intelligent, and the end results are usually bad design. (My feet and back ache terribly some days!)
I don’t know of anyone who loves or admires evolution as a system of producing species. Rather, I think, many of us love and admire the end results of that process. The world’s biodiversity is beautiful, elegant, and awe-inspiring. The forms of the deer are surpassing lovely.
Sex leads to greater variability and the survival of recessive traits that may be useful later. This was favored by evolution because it increased the chance of survival (of the traits, not necessarily the individual) under changing conditions.
Another question. Are white Americans worse off than in Europe since the Native Americans were naturally darker.
But Native Americans immigrated into North America from Asia so they aren’t really Native. Who In general is better of from an evolutionary perspective?
From an evolutionary perspective, the White Americans, since they killed off most of the Native Americans, either deliberately or accidentally. “Survival of the fittest” is the only game in town, from an evolutionary perspective.
Well, but for that to fly, surely you need to not be waxing sarcastic about the inefficiency of evolution. From the OP it looked as though you were equally unhappy with Creationism and Darwinism. :dubious:
Actually, I think the answer is that humans are able to adapt to different geographical environments. Isn’t it the case that humans and dogs have the widest environmental range of any creatures on Earth?
Adapting immediately would be a disadvantage. Case in point, in a parallel universe, slaves were brought over from a far land, a disease hit and only the slaves survived, and then thrived, then created interdimentional travel and told me that is why God did not allow for instant evolution.