Some people actually think that becus e they had no existence for an eternity before their birth that they will therefore have no existence when they die. How does that compute? How is that logical? Yet it seems to be what Dawkins is saying in another interview I just happened to get on my screen, the host not being known to me. Some famous philosophers apparently had such a silly idea. And Dawkins calls the idea of an afterlife simpley a lie, he's that confivinced. And pparently he's that convinced becaue he is convinced by evolution. Which is a good enough explanation.
He thinks of course that evolution is gradual, that we are descended from fish but that the evolution is so slow and gradual you can never detect any change from species to species at any particular point in the evolutionary process. Well, that's perfectly locial but not really possible. I keep trying to find ways to wsay it clearly and it's hard, maybe not possible in the end. I just know you can't evolve from one genome to another, you are stuck in your genome, your descendants all inherit that genome, that genome does not become some other genome although there mayh be some anomalies from time to time that make it look like there could be such a change. Of course you can get away with not having to prove anything if you juist insist that it's so gradual it can never be detected. There's no way to answer that sort of claim.
But I reall y do think that the process of evolution, specifically selection, natural selection or random selection, any kind of seleciton that isolates a new set ofgene fraquencies, from population to population tends to a reduction in genetic diversity which really means a n increse in homozygosity or a decrease in genes with two different alleles. That's where the variety comes from. Once you have a pure berreed or "species" ofif you are talking about nature, at a certain distance from the original population anyway, you will have too many homozygous genes for further change to be possible. Thast's a trend that may not very often reach that drastic condition through say a series of population isolations, but is demonstrated in the cdrastic examples of the endangered species creted bgy bottlenecks. The trend is always in that direction through series of selections but you may only really see it in the bottleneck cases. Maybe in ring species although people have denied that when I've brought it up. I reallyh think it must ultimately be the end result of a long series of geographic isolations from a previous population. Each would bring out new phenotypes and do so at the cost of genetic verity, with greater homoszygosity for certain traits and oso on and so forth. I don't think this is wrong, I think it is a real trend and it is the proof needed that evolution is impossible.
There simply is no oopenended evolution as Dawkins imagines.
As for life after death, doesn't it just seem unlikely that such a complexz cretaure as a human being could just go out like a light? Doesn't it?
Oh well.
