Thought Points

Me being adept in the skillful art of procrastinating, am faced with several papers and tests due in a few days, so, this will not be an in depth essay as much as it will be a few, perhaps abstract points:

- The purpose of evolution, from what I’ve known, is for one organism to be more efficient in its way of survival. A bird’s beak is too short to reach far enough into a certain flower, so said bird’s offspring is born with longer beaks (to give a simplified example).

If this were the case, would it not be most efficient for, instead of us (apparently, through billions of years) evolving into such separate, distinct and complex lifeforms – for everything to simply be one large, ever-expanding, blob of gel? I’d have to say that being a blob, resistant to many forms of weather, disease and the like, which feeds off of everything around it, constantly grows, has no predators (for there would only be one form of life), etc. is a much more efficient form of survival – and ensures living far more than what we have now.

Why do we not have that? Why am I able to think, type, feel separate from the whole, etc. if we evolved for the sole purpose of surviving in a more efficient manner?

 - The philosophy of Occam’s Razor (… explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. – As defined by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor) lacks viability. It seems to be a hypocritical way to disregard anything that attempts to bring about something that transcends our senses, or logic.

There are assumptions that cannot be proven by observable means made constantly, and frequently. I will be so bold as to suggest someone prove to me that Alexander the Great conquered most of the world, or, that he even existed, for that matter. Is it not making an assumption that the olden literature and the like are factual, and true in what they say? – Or is this a reasonable assumption to make?

Then, why is it not a reasonable assumption that what is presented in the Bible is factual? Especially considering that Alexander the Great existed far before Jesus, and newer records are usually more accurate. Jesus walked on water. – What proof is there against the evidence in the Bible?

- It’s statistical fact that seat belts improve one’s survivability in a car crash. We are, then, made to wear seat belts without much hesitation. It’s statistical fact that children with single parents aren’t raised to reach their full potential (or some other such wording) as children with two parents. Thus, many parents stay together for the sole purpose of their children. It’s statistical fact that raw meat can carry diseases cooked meat cannot. Therefore, people tend to cook their meat and refuse to eat raw meat, and see it as completely normal. It’s statistical fact that people who have a gun are more likely to shoot a gun. Then, there are many, many regulations put against our right to own a gun. Its statistical fact that people who don’t engage themselves in the formalized system of education do “worse” in life. Its statistical fact that those who conform have a “happier” life. Its statistical fact that those who pursue a degree for a job make more money than those who do it for sheerly educational purposes. Its statistical fact that you probably won’t write a book in your life. Its statistical fact that you probably won’t be much more than yet another head in the clouds. Its statistical fact that you will be living day by day, check by check. Its statistical fact that blacks hold a higher rate of crime than whites…

… oh shi–

Statistics are of no matter to the individual. Next time someone tries to justify the denying of an individual right via statistics, punch them – and call them a racist.