Does evolution have to explain everything?
According to the theory of evolution, is it possible for there to be things that are not useful or necessary for survival and on the other hand do not harm survival? In other words, does evolution claim that everything that exists is necessary for survival, or are there things that are not evolutionarily useful in their function and still exist (neutral in the evolutionary context)?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In your book you made the claim that evolution does not need the mental as a whole, hence its very existence is neutral and not necessary for survival. Is it possible to say that most mental traits have probably adapted in one way or another to evolutionary needs, or is it a closed system and there may be many traits whose function is inherent to the mental essence regardless of their survival/evolutionary necessity?
It may be so. But as far as I understand, there is no advantage to those with mental components. The survival advantages are behavioral in nature and therefore everything could have been programmed through biology.
Can mental traits not be suitable for survival considerations? I'm not sure. Even if the problem is mental, if the bottom line is that the behavior is not survival-oriented, the creature will become extinct.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
