wiegraf:

If I understand correctly the problem you have with evolution having no purpose is that most organisms in nature have a strong will to live, as such you believe evolutions role/purpose is to supply the various life forms with the necessary equipment to achieve this?

If that's where you see the problem, I think you are quite close but just missed a turn or two. Maybe you're mixing up a few things. I'm going to state some very basic stuff, bear with it, it will all combine later.

It's all about probabilities, you're not a clone of course. The odds of this gene showing up in offspring are higher if one its recent ancestors has that gene, but occasionally completely new genes show up etc. Just have in the back of your mind that it's all probabilities.

Now say a mother of whatever species gives birth to two kids, one is unable to feel pain, the other can. These two get near a fire, the one that can feel pain backs up, pain indicating danger. The other, sadly, becomes lunch for the rest of family. Now as the one which could not feel pain dies off, the odds of that gene being spread reduce. The one that feels pain has kids and they are more likely to have genes like hers, ie, they will feel pain.

Now all these traits which a lot of animal species have with regards to self-preservation (females seeking out the strongest available mate, fear, pain, aggressive males, tools needed for hunting, even social traits) are inherited. It's not that some of their ancestors or current members of the species were/are not born with other traits (in fact I think there are some people born without the ability to feel pain, but I would have to confirm), its that they die out. If you couldn't feel hunger you'd suddenly die because you were not aware that you needed food, and starved yourself to death. If you weren't physically tough you'd die out (if you relied on strength for survival ie) as the bigger animals would probably monopolize resources, or kill you for whatever reasons. If the female doesn't seek out the stronger males, chances are greater of her having weaker (as far as survival is concerned) offspring, thus there is less of a chance of this type of females spreading, instead the hustling female is the one that becomes dominant. If a member wasn't particularly interested in mating, then it wouldn't have children, end of the line (in fact, this a problem apparently with atheists, there are more atheists now then ever, but our ratio is actually reducing because religious have a lot more kids)

In essence, most of the time, it's the biological life forms with the more selfish traits that survive and spread their genes ( I would imagine this is one of the reasons dawkins calls his book the selfish gene, though I've not read it). Thus evolution may seem to have a purpose, it doesn't. It just so happens that the more 'selfish' life forms are the ones with a higher chance of surviving, and do so. Hence their ubiquity. Their genes instill a goal/purpose: to survive. Evolution could care less.

Of course how one chooses to view this spiritually is left to himself/herself, but science is perfectly happy as is. Determinism vs free will would surely give a lot of people sleepless nights (include inherent chance in quantum mechanics).

Random: asking if evolution, a mechanical, inanimate natural process (or group of processes) has a purpose is a bit like asking what is the suns purpose in shining. It doesn't have one. When gravity, matter etc combine in a certain way they form a star, which constantly emits energy among other things, as by products. Thank @deity they do (if you've got the 'selfish' survival genes) as if nature didn't work that way, you wouldn't be here. But obviously, it doesn't have a purpose, it just is, a by product of energy in our universe. Variety of life is a by product of the evolutionary processes, simple. In fact, they are the logical outcome when look at artificial breeding today as a demonstration, natural selection, genetics, survival of the fittest, geography, millions of years for it to simmer etc etc. The more intelligent ID supporters could try to wiggle in some clock maker setting off these processes, but that actually complicates rather than simplifies. For instance, who/ what made the clock maker? The judeo-christian god wouldn't qualify as a clock maker imo anyways because of the problem of evil, among other things. But let me end the ramble here. I'll clear it up but need to be away for a bit.

Also I'm not a pro, so of course verify. Your thoughts?

Edit: clarity, grammar

Ok wiegraf, let's work through this...

First of all human beings are a very complex organism. Basically, a human being is a whole universe of individual cells living together and these cell all have to work in near perfect uniformity for a human being to function. A human being who doesn't feel pain will be seen as diseased. It won't be attributed to genetics. Perhaps we should make it a bit simpler by focusing more on unicellular organisms.

Now you talked about probabilities, let us put a number to it shall we? The number of atoms present in a single cell organism is estimated at 100 trillion. Now, the chance of life starting from a primordial soup means that these 100,000,000,000,000 atoms need to come together in a specific way. This puts the chance of life forming on earth at one in 100 trillion factorial (100,000,000,000,000 x 99,999,999,999,999 x 99,999,999,999,998......3 x 2 x 1). Please take a minute to consider the magnitude of that number. Just for comparism, 50 factorial is approximately 3 x 10^64 (3 with 64 zeroes following). Now even if this "probability" happened (and mind you it would have to repeat itself quite a number of times), it wouldn't still explain life.

Let us leave the above aside for now, let us assume that the conditions were just right (which by the way is another "probability" of it's own) so that life "miraculously" happened and we have the first living cell or groups of cells, let us also agree that these cells don't have any consciousness whatsoever and the basic characteristics of living things (movement, growth, respiration, feeding, excretion, reproduction and response to stimuli) are just chemical reactions for this cell since it doesn't have a conscious life.

The question now becomes why would the cell reproduce at all in the first place enabling it to pass it's genes on? Why would the gene want to be propagated?

Let us also ignore this question and assume that reproduction is just a random chemical reaction such that the cells that don't reproduce simply die. same thing for feeding respiration e.t.c.

Another question pops up: How can an organism die if all the characteristics of it being a living thing are more or less, chemical reactions? This should point to the fact that as long as natural conditions remains the same, these chemical reactions should continue and the organism should stay 'alive' and never die or decay.

Let us not even talk about the probability of these 'mindless' organisms eventually evolving into complex animals like we have today (A human being that weighs 70kg is roughly 7 quadrillion synchronized cells).

The above are some of the logical steps we have to jump across before coming to complex organisms.

Now most animals are in such a way that they are adapted to their environment, this evolution explains is as a result of natural selection i.e. these are the animals that survived and the traits are not developed in response to the environment rather, they are developed in spite of the environment. the environment only lets some traits survive. This sounds like a good explanation until we look at it a bit more closely.

Take for instance the presence of melanin in the human skin, or the absence of tails in human beings. If evolution is really by purposeless natural selection, shouldn't a surviving trait simply continue to exist even though it we have no more use for it? After all it is not threatening our survival.

Doesn't this suggest that rather than mindless natural selection, there is a purpose that allows the animal to adapt to it's environment.

As for dawkins and his selfish gene theory, well that's another pot of soup on it's own.

Mr_Anony:

Ok wiegraf, let's work through this...

First of all human beings are a very complex organism. Basically, a human being is a whole universe of individual cells living together and these cell all have to work in near perfect uniformity for a human being to function. A human being who doesn't feel pain will be seen as diseased. It won't be attributed to genetics. Perhaps we should make it a bit simpler by focusing more on unicellular organisms.

Now you talked about probabilities, let us put a number to it shall we? The number of atoms present in a single cell organism is estimated at 100 trillion. Now, the chance of life starting from a primordial soup means that these 100,000,000,000,000 atoms need to come together in a specific way. This puts the chance of life forming on earth at one in 100 trillion factorial (100,000,000,000,000 x 99,999,999,999,999 x 99,999,999,999,998......3 x 2 x 1). Please take a minute to consider the magnitude of that number. Just for comparism, 50 factorial is approximately 3 x 10^64 (3 with 64 zeroes following). Now even if this "probability" happened (and mind you it would have to repeat itself quite a number of times), it wouldn't still explain life.

Let us leave the above aside for now, let us assume that the conditions were just right (which by the way is another "probability" of it's own) so that life "miraculously" happened and we have the first living cell or groups of cells, let us also agree that these cells don't have any consciousness whatsoever and the basic characteristics of living things (movement, growth, respiration, feeding, excretion, reproduction and response to stimuli) are just chemical reactions for this cell since it doesn't have a conscious life.

The question now becomes why would the cell reproduce at all in the first place enabling it to pass it's genes on? Why would the gene want to be propagated?

Let us also ignore this question and assume that reproduction is just a random chemical reaction such that the cells that don't reproduce simply die. same thing for feeding respiration e.t.c.

Another question pops up: How can an organism die if all the characteristics of it being a living thing are more or less, chemical reactions? This should point to the fact that as long as natural conditions remains the same, these chemical reactions should continue and the organism should stay 'alive' and never die or decay.

Let us not even talk about the probability of these 'mindless' organisms eventually evolving into complex animals like we have today A human being that weighs 70kg is roughly 7 quadrillion synchronized cells.

The above are some of the logical steps we have to jump across before coming to complex organisms.

Now most animals are in such a way that they are adapted to their environment, this evolution explains is as a result of natural selection i.e. these are the animals that survived and the traits are not developed in response to the environment rather, they are developed in spite of the environment. the environment only lets some traits survive. This sounds like a good explanation until we look at it a bit more closely.

Take for instance the presence of melanin in the human skin, or the absence of tails in human beings. If evolution is really by purposeless natural selection, shouldn't a surviving trait simply continue to exist even though it we have no more use for it? After all it is not threatening our survival.

Doesn't this suggest that rather than mindless natural selection, there is a purpose that allows the animal to adapt to it's environment.

As for dawkins and his selfish gene theory, well that's another pot of soup on it's own.

Now you've made me very hungry to hear his response

Ihedinobi:

Now you've made me very hungry to hear his response

I am equally just as hungry too

Sorry to interrupt.

Mr_Anony:

Ok wiegraf, let's work through this...

First of all human beings are a very complex organism. Basically, a human being is a whole universe of individual cells living together and these cell all have to work in near perfect uniformity for a human being to function. A human being who doesn't feel pain will be seen as diseased. It won't be attributed to genetics. Perhaps we should make it a bit simpler by focusing more on unicellular organisms.

Other organisms made up of organ systems are very complex too.

Mr_Anony:
Now you talked about probabilities, let us put a number to it shall we? The number of atoms present in a single cell organism is estimated at 100 trillion. Now, the chance of life starting from a primordial soup means that these 100,000,000,000,000 atoms need to come together in a specific way. This puts the chance of life forming on earth at one in 100 trillion factorial (100,000,000,000,000 x 99,999,999,999,999 x 99,999,999,999,998......3 x 2 x 1). Please take a minute to consider the magnitude of that number. Just for comparism, 50 factorial is approximately 3 x 10^64 (3 with 64 zeroes following). Now even if this "probability" happened (and mind you it would have to repeat itself quite a number of times), it wouldn't still explain life.

So you have a large number. What is its significance? Another thing you're failing to consider is the fact that atoms and molecules assemble in certain ways.

Mr_Anony:
Let us leave the above aside for now, let us assume that the conditions were just right (which by the way is another "probability" of it's own) so that life "miraculously" happened and we have the first living cell or groups of cells, let us also agree that these cells don't have any consciousness whatsoever and the basic characteristics of living things (movement, growth, respiration, feeding, excretion, reproduction and response to stimuli) are just chemical reactions for this cell since it doesn't have a conscious life.

The question now becomes why would the cell reproduce at all in the first place enabling it to pass it's genes on? Why would the gene want to be propagated?

Cells reproduce because it is what they do. It is what living things do. Your stomach digests food, your heart pumps blood, cells divide.

Mr_Anony:
Let us also ignore this question and assume that reproduction is just a random chemical reaction such that the cells that don't reproduce simply die. same thing for feeding respiration e.t.c.

Another question pops up: How can an organism die if all the characteristics of it being a living thing are more or less, chemical reactions? This should point to the fact that as long as natural conditions remains the same, these chemical reactions should continue and the organism should stay 'alive' and never die or decay.

Organisms die and decay due to entropy. The universe tends towards an increase in entropy.

Mr_Anony:
Let us not even talk about the probability of these 'mindless' organisms eventually evolving into complex animals like we have today (A human being that weighs 70kg is roughly 7 quadrillion synchronized cells).

So what? Larger animals can easily have a larger number of cells.

Mr_Anony:
The above are some of the logical steps we have to jump across before coming to complex organisms.

Now most animals are in such a way that they are adapted to their environment, this evolution explains is as a result of natural selection i.e. these are the animals that survived and the traits are not developed in response to the environment rather, they are developed in spite of the environment. the environment only lets some traits survive. This sounds like a good explanation until we look at it a bit more closely.

This is simply false. Certain traits are developed due to environmental pressure. Maybe you need to take a primer course on the theory of evolution.

Mr_Anony:
Take for instance the presence of melanin in the human skin, or the absence of tails in human beings. If evolution is really by purposeless natural selection, shouldn't a surviving trait simply continue to exist even though it we have no more use for it? After all it is not threatening our survival.

Not really. If a trait or organ is no longer used, then it may be adapted for another purpose or it may become vestigial accumulating mutations that won't significantly affect the organism's ability to survive to the age of reproduction.

Mr_Anony:
Doesn't this suggest that rather than mindless natural selection, there is a purpose that allows the animal to adapt to it's environment.

No it doesn't. What do you think the purpose of a whale is? And who gave it this purpose?

Mr_Anony:
As for dawkins and his selfish gene theory, well that's another pot of soup on it's own.

The selfish gene was simply a metaphor not a scientific theory.

thehomer: Sorry to interrupt.



Other organisms made up of organ systems are very complex too.



So you have a large number. What is its significance? Another thing you're failing to consider is the fact that atoms and molecules assemble in certain ways.



Cells reproduce because it is what they do. It is what living things do. Your stomach digests food, your heart pumps blood, cells divide.



Organisms die and decay due to entropy. The universe tends towards an increase in entropy.



So what? Larger animals can easily have a larger number of cells.



This is simply false. Certain traits are developed due to environmental pressure. Maybe you need to take a primer course on the theory of evolution.



Not really. If a trait or organ is no longer used, then it may be adapted for another purpose or it may become vestigial accumulating mutations that won't significantly affect the organism's ability to survive to the age of reproduction.



No it doesn't. What do you think the purpose of a whale is? And who gave it this purpose?


The selfish gene was simply a metaphor not a scientific theory.

First of all, you are very welcome to interrupt. I am trying to learn something here. I am of the understanding that evolution is guided by completely random mutations of which the best surviving ones are propagated. My question now is does this not contradict the basic characteristic of living things which is to respond to stimuli?

I see evolution as a way organisms adapt to their environment by responding to it. Evolution by natural selection seems to hold that living things are not really responding to their environment but are throwing out different responses of which nature now allows the best response to win. Is this true? If not explain.

thehomer: Sorry to interrupt.

Cells reproduce because it is what they do. It is what living things do. Your stomach digests food, your heart pumps blood, cells divide.

But why? what was the purpose?

Mr_Anony:

First of all, you are very welcome to interrupt. I am trying to learn something here. I am of the understanding that evolution is guided by completely random mutations of which the best surviving ones are propagated. My question now is does this not contradict the basic characteristic of living things which is to respond to stimuli?

You're confusing a number of things here. Evolution occurs mainly by two processes, random mutation and natural selection. It acts on populations. It isn't contradictory to an individual responding to stimuli.

Mr_Anony:
I see evolution as a way organisms adapt to their environment by responding to it. Evolution by natural selection seems to hold that living things are not really responding to their environment but are throwing out different responses of which nature now allows the best response to win. Is this true? If not explain.

Nature selecting certain individuals is a response to the environment.

davidylan:

But why? what was the purpose?

That is simply what they do. Or what sort or purposes do you have in mind? Your question is no better than asking why the stomach digests food.

davidylan:

Evolution fails on all 4 levels as well. So what is your point?

I strongly doubt if this is an answer

thehomer:

That is simply what they do. Or what sort or purposes do you have in mind? Your question is no better than asking why the stomach digests food.

Why? what was the purpose for them doing that? What defined that purpose if at all?
Living things just reproduce out of the blue for what reason?

Kay 17:

I strongly doubt if this is an answer

what else where you expecting?

ID is not an alternative to evolution.

davidylan:

Why? what was the purpose for them doing that? What defined that purpose if at all?
Living things just reproduce out of the blue for what reason?

Purpose according to who are you looking for? The sun shines because it is what it does. Seeds germinate because it is what they do. What is the purpose for these processes? Answer those questions and you'll be closer to finding the answer to the question you're asking.

thehomer:

Purpose according to who are you looking for? The sun shines because it is what it does. Seeds germinate because it is what they do. What is the purpose for these processes? Answer those questions and you'll be closer to finding the answer to the question you're asking.

the sun appeared by random chance and those seeds just appeared out of nowhere? So sand exists because that is what it always does? Somehow this chance has ONLY found expression on this tiny portion of the universe?

davidylan:

the sun appeared by random chance and those seeds just appeared out of nowhere? So sand exists because that is what it always does? Somehow this chance has ONLY found expression on this tiny portion of the universe?

Function is a better word. Purpose presumes an anticipated outcome and primordial person.

davidylan:

the sun appeared by random chance and those seeds just appeared out of nowhere? So sand exists because that is what it always does? Somehow this chance has ONLY found expression on this tiny portion of the universe?

You seem to be answering another question. The questions again are as follows. Why does the sun shine and why do seeds germinate?

thehomer:

You seem to be answering another question. The questions again are as follows. Why does the sun shine and why do seeds germinate?

My answer - God made it so.

your answer?

thehomer:

You're confusing a number of things here. Evolution occurs mainly by two processes, random mutation and natural selection. It acts on populations. It isn't contradictory to an individual responding to stimuli.
Nature selecting certain individuals is a response to the environment.

There is something missing from your answer, It is how exactly does random mutation and natural selection not contradict response to stimuli? Please explain in some detail.

Thehomer and Kay 17, you guys must really be feeling like intellectuals right now, aren't you?

The sun shines to give light and energy to power practically all life processes on planet earth at least. Seeds germinate to become plants/trees that eventually provide food or medicine or beauty for us humans. They do these because they were created to do so.

Kay 17, tell us the functional difference between the word, "function" and the word, "purpose".

Thehomer, what is nature? Some mindless entity that employs some baseless criteria to mindlessly decide which species should go on existing and which should be annihilated?

Again, thehomer, why complexity at all? And why diversities of species and organisms? If this is all nonsense, why so much and so many varieties of it?

Yeah, while you're mulling that, thehomer, I'd like to know too, how did cells and atoms figure to come together in certain ways and not others? I mean, this whole thing is purposeless, so why must it be one way and not any other random way? The luck here looks a bit too lucky, if you get my meaning.

davidylan:

My answer - God made it so.

That is a meaningless answer. It is no better than saying Santa Claus made it so.

davidylan:
your answer?

My answer depends on "who"/"what" you think defines what the "purpose" is.

Mr_Anony:
There is something missing from your answer, It is how exactly does random mutation and natural selection not contradict response to stimuli? Please explain in some detail.

I've already given you an answer. Let me repeat it. Random mutation and natural selection act at the level of the population. Response to stimuli acts at the level of the individual.
You'll need to actually show me the contradiction you have in mind because I don't see it.

thehomer:

I've already given you an answer. Let me repeat it. Random mutation and natural selection act at the level of the population. Response to stimuli acts at the level of the individual.
You'll need to actually show me the contradiction you have in mind because I don't see it.

How can you say that something acts in a particular way as a single entity but then suddenly acts in many unpredictable ways once it is a multiple? How come this happens?

Ihedinobi: Thehomer and Kay 17, you guys must really be feeling like intellectuals right now, aren't you?

The sun shines to give light and energy to power practically all life processes on planet earth at least. Seeds germinate to become plants/trees that eventually provide food or medicine or beauty for us humans. They do these because they were created to do so.

You're working with the assumption that the sun and plants were put in place for you. Isn't that just hubris? There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars and you think this one was put in place just for you?

Ihedinobi:
Kay 17, tell us the functional difference between the word, "function" and the word, "purpose".

Thehomer, what is nature? Some mindless entity that employs some baseless criteria to mindlessly decide which species should go on existing and which should be annihilated?

You're reifying nature and that is a fallacy. You can use the third definition here.

Wiktionary:
The summary of everything that has to do with biological, chemical and physical states and events in the physical universe.

Ihedinobi:
Again, thehomer, why complexity at all? And why diversities of species and organisms? If this is all nonsense, why so much and so many varieties of it?

Who says it is all nonsense? Definitely not I. Why shouldn't there be a diversity? Besides, this diversity is explained by the theory of evolution.

Ihedinobi:
Yeah, while you're mulling that, thehomer, I'd like to know too, how did cells and atoms figure to come together in certain ways and not others? I mean, this whole thing is purposeless, so why must it be one way and not any other random way? The luck here looks a bit too lucky, if you get my meaning.

What do you mean? Atoms assume all sorts of structures e.g Carbon exists as graphene, buckminsterfullerene and diamonds. So what on earth do you mean by "other random way"?

Mr_Anony:
How can you say that something acts in a particular way as a single entity but then suddenly acts in many unpredictable ways once it is a multiple? How come this happens?

I've not actually said what you're attributing to me in your post above. I simply pointed out to you that what you think are contradictions aren't actually contradictions. There is no contradiction between reacting to stimuli and random mutation plus natural selection. If you think they are contradictory, then I need you to demonstrate this.

Also, it is possible for an individual to act a certain way and a group which it belongs to act in another. It is a well known phenomenon in social psychology. Consider the introduction on this article.

I'm going to bed, thehomer, I think your wiliness is showing.

thehomer:

I've not actually said what you're attributing to me in your post above. I simply pointed out to you that what you think are contradictions aren't actually contradictions. There is no contradiction between reacting to stimuli and random mutation plus natural selection. If you think they are contradictory, then I need you to demonstrate this.

Also, it is possible for an individual to act a certain way and a group which it belongs to act in another. It is a well known phenomenon in social psychology. Consider the introduction on this article.

Dude, I am not thinking anything. I am asking a question that truly puzzles me as regards evolution and you are linking me to a psychology article. What has that article got to do with anything I am asking?

If genes are passed on from one individual to another, how come "Random mutation and natural selection act at the level of the population." when the genes themselves are passed at an individual level?

Ihedinobi: I'm going to bed, thehomer, I think your wiliness is showing.

What wiliness? Your inability to answer my questions or your committing logical fallacies aren't my fault.

Mr_Anony:
Dude, I am not thinking anything. I am asking a question that truly puzzles me as regards evolution and you are linking me to a psychology article. What has that article got to do with anything I am asking?

That article tells you that it is possible for the decision of an individual to be different from that of the group.

Mr_Anony:
If genes are passed on from one individual to another, how come "Random mutation and natural selection act at the level of the population." when the genes themselves are passed at an individual level?

It is because a population evolves not just the individual. In order to determine that evolution is occurring, you compare the frequency of certain alleles between different populations.

thehomer:

That article tells you that it is possible for the decision of an individual to be different from that of the group.

but evolution is not a decision...anyway, that's by the way.

It is because a population evolves not just the individual. In order to determine that evolution is occurring, you compare the frequency of certain alleles between different populations.

Would you agree that each individual cell is evolving however, we observe it by looking at the population?

Mr_Anony:
but evolution is not a decision...anyway, that's by the way.

I know it isn't but reacting to stimuli can in a sense be considered as one.

Mr_Anony:
Would you agree that each individual cell is evolving however, we observe it by looking at the population?

No for various reasons.
1. Many organisms aren't unicellular.
2. You cannot tell that a single organism is evolving because that will be too little information.

You're still yet to actually present what you thought was a contradiction.

Ihedinobi: I'm going to bed, thehomer, I think your wiliness is showing.

worry not, every single individual who has had the opportunity to cross paths with thehomer has left with the exact same feeling. A slimy snake who really doesnt know but covers his own ignorance with hubris.

thehomer:
No for various reasons.
1. Many organisms aren't unicellular.
2. You cannot tell that a single organism is evolving because that will be too little information.

You're still yet to actually present what you thought was a contradiction.

1. Many organisms arent unicellular but the VAST bulk of biomass on earth is unicellular so what was your point? Infact we can conclude that the most adaptable and most successful species on earth are unicellular organisms.

2. To say we cannot tell that a single organism is evolving is just plain mad. The bulk of research showing how mutations markedly change phenotype has been done in single-celled organisms. For example, a lot of my mutation studies back in grad school was done in E. coli.