evolution

>>9115947
>muh evolution

Take the redpill, numale fedora cuck

>>>/r/atheism

>>9115947
zoonomia

>>9115962
how bout i take my numale fedora dick and evolutionize it up your asshole

>>9115963
thanks ill check it out

File: 1485999415779.png (71KB, 315x145px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 315x145px

>>9115962

Your shitposting is lazy and you should consider taking it someplace else

>>9115947

Some of Aristotle's stuff on final causes, like in Metaphysics or De Anima might be neat. While not evolution in and of itself, it's a good read when considering that it deals with acclimation towards a niche

The only reason you would ask for this is if your knowledge of evolution stops at "Darwin discovered evolution." Do some research on contemporary issues in evolution (Neodarwinists vs. Gould et al., NOMA debates, speciation hypotheses, etc.) and you'll see how philosophically and politically rife the scientific community is on evolution, and subsequently how dead and unevolved the philosophical literature is on it.

I'm ordinarily much more in support of utilizing philosophical tools to analyze topics over scientific tools, but evolution is quite purely in the domain of science, and attempting to remove it from that domain would be like trying to discuss Derrida with a graphing calculator.

Chance and Necessity by Jacques Monod

>>9116652

This is a good response and I'm inclined to agree that philosophy is only of historic interest here.

>>9115947
Henri Bergson wrote about evolution in Creative Evolution. Haven't read it but it sounds like it's worth checking out

>>9115962
this anon is correct. earth is 2000 years old, dinosaurs and humans lived together except dinosaurs didn't exist and their 'fossils' are made up by s*tan to tempt people into believing ev*lution and turning to ath*ism

>books that deal with evolution and natural selection from a philosophical standpoint

I really cant even imagine what this would be like
like wouldn't it basically just be a book filled with lies?

>>9115947
Nagel

>>9115947
Last and First Men OP.

>>9115947
>The philosophy of evolution not science

Are you autistic? I don't get it.

File: 1376012410516.jpg (16KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x400px

>>9116652
Unfortunately you are totally right with
>how dead and unevolved the philosophical literature is on it.

Nevertheless I disagree with
>evolution is quite purely in the domain of science, and attempting to remove it from that domain would be like trying to discuss Derrida with a graphing calculator.
Evolution is partly a metaphysical speculation which can't be verified entierely "in the domain of science" but must be justified philosophically, too. And it has to be defended ethically against the common believe that it's kind of immoral (which is not the case).

For example I'm still waiting for a good comparison of Hegel's "Phänomenologie des Geistes" and Darwin's "On the origin of species". It would help a lot to understand at least the historical roots ot the theory of evolution as well as it's basic structures. I'm 100% sure Darwin was deeply influenced by Hegel's thoughts (there are just too many parallels) - and I consider Darwin to be the one who truly turned Hegel upside down and put him on his feet.

>>9117758
Didn't Nagel get BTFO'd for trying to do Philosophy of Science?

>>9117935
Good choice, although a little bit dated.

>>9117743
no

Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennett

Not really a 'fan' of Dennett, but this is an illuminating book, nonetheless.

>>9121233
Why don't you like Dennett's work? This being said, why is it still an illuminating book, nonetheless?