First of all sorry if I put this in the wrong folder.
Anyway one time I was trying to put evolution in a logical perspective. Well I was wondering why we evolve in the first place. I could think of a couple answers. They were: need, curiosity, and want for perfection, which is sort of falls into the second category.
Just to be clear I want to make the distinction between microevolution and macro. microevolution can be seen in the difference between a different culture (often, but less and less as time goes on). It is defined as the changes between two animals of the same species based on different situations.
Anyway, lets assume that we do it by need. Quickly you see that microevolution can take care of most of the changes we are likely to encounter i.e. climate change. But lets say that there is something that it cant take care of, lets say a flood. We wouldn't be able to get gills fast enough before we drowned.
I am going to discuss the last two at the same time since I have the same argument. Lets say we were driven by one of them, both of them are driven by our brain and first when we were single cells we wouldn't be able to have curiosity and besides our consciousness cannot control the DNA. Another problem with the perfection angle is that suppose that some little part of us knows what would be better and changes us that way. How is a single celled being not as genetically good or better than us since it is more adaptable. And assuming that we are better there would be no other living thing besides us.
™ Version 4.2