• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does evolution have a purpose?

Does evolution have a purpose

  • yes

    Votes: 17 32.1%
  • no

    Votes: 30 56.6%
  • not sure

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • Total voters
    53

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Does evolution have a purpose?
-If yes what is it?
-If no, why not?

The answer appears to be yes, with that purpose connected to water. If you take cells and dehydrate them, nothing in the cell will work properly, even if we leave all the organics and ions in tact. If we add any other solvent, suggested as the basis for possible life, still nothing works properly and there is no life. If we then add water back, everything will work and life appears. Water is critical to life. It forms a copartnership with the organics, with the water leading.

Water was the nano-environment in which even the precursors of life evolved; abiogenesis. Like a macro-environment; desert, which set potentials for certain animals to thrive, the water environment set the selective potentials at the nanoscale, for the needed organics of life, which is why everything works in water. These were all selected by the water for the needs of water. If you add another solvent, it is like bringing a polar bear to the equator. He will not be optimized and this may even be life threatening. But if we return him to where he evolved; polar regions, his optimization returns.

Water brings unique properties to the table, that are needed for life. One important property is the water-oil affect. If we mix water and oil, and shake it, it will form an emulsion. If we stop agitating and allow this to settle, it will phase separate into two layers. The water-oil affect allows water to force the organics of life into specific shapes, as a way to lower the surface tension of the water. Other organic solvents suggested for life do not show the same degree of surface tension with these life materials, so the shapes become different and not optimized to the needs of life.

For example, enzymes are synthesized on ribosomes in the presence of the local water. When these polymers come out hot of the press, they feel the surfacer tension potential of the water. They are forced to pack and do so in a very systematic way, implicit of its composition, that lowers the surface tension of the water, in the fastest way. The result is perfectly packed enzymes every time. Water speeded up the process of protein selection, since not all amino acid sequences pack well enough to become enzymes. Other solvents create more packing errors due to less surface tension.

An interesting tidbit is the genetic material or DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell. Part has to do with its large size. However, it is also due to the DNA being selected by water to be its organic liaison due to its ability to be in harmony with water; very low surface tension. This allows water to build outward on the surface of the DNA and wire the DNA to the cellular water. This was an evolving goal at the nano-scale; optimize the water with a template zone that defines low surface tension; high solubility.

Packing proteins change this balance and will cause DNA-packing protein to packmen further in an attempt to lower the added surface tension; DNA beads up in a very systematic way all the way to chromosomes. This simple surface tension switch allows for replication and even cellular differentiation. All cells in our body have the same DNA, yet each cell type can shows a unique differentiation. This can be controlled by surface tension near the DNA.

The most significant property of water is connected to hydrogen bonding. The majority of water selected molecules of life have this same set of hydrogen bonding properties; DNA,RNA, Protein. Hydrogen bonding is unique in that it shows both polar and covalent bonding. The pH affect demonstrates this. This binary nature of the hydrogen bond is like a binary switch that can be used to transmit information.

The polar side of the switch has higher entropy, higher enthalpy and occupies less space. While the covalent side of the switch has lower entropy, lower enthalpy and occupies more space. Liquid water is a crowded place. The information flow, that alters the switches, such as dynamic changes in surface tension as food enters the cells, results in information with both energy and muscle. Through this system of communication water can integrate the workings of the cell, since hydrogen bonding signals move faster than molecular diffusion, and help set the table before the guests arrive.

The purpose of all this is connected to the second law; entropy. Life increases entropy at a pace that is unlike that of inanimate objects. A rock may increase entropy when it forms but after that the pace is very slow as it slowly breaks down over eons. Life is an entropy generating marvel. Water mediates this second law drive. There is a sense of direction.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Probably true, but we also do know that some species have devised other ways to keep warm, whether that be through instinct or thought.
So you think that moths may think in the cocoon to get out of it? As far as keeping warm, dogs know enough to go to a warm area when it's cold, such as a doghouse or a blanket, but make clothing for themselves?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Probably true, but we also do know that some species have devised other ways to keep warm, whether that be through instinct or thought.
OK, let me be a little more explicit. When I said that humans alone devised clothing, I know you don't really believe the Bible, but here's a little thought for you--when Adam and Eve realized they were naked, it wasn't because they were cold.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do apes (not those said by evolutionists as the human kind) write?
So you think that moths may think in the cocoon to get out of it? As far as keeping warm, dogs know enough to go to a warm area when it's cold, such as a doghouse or a blanket, but make clothing for themselves?
What does all this clothing and writing have to do with evolution, anyway? They had nothing to do with the evolution of modern man.

We developed in tropical regions, with no need for clothing. The first clothing was decorative, not protective. Modern man was fully developed by the time he moved to regions that required insulation.

Likewise writing. We had the mental capacity to write 20,000 years ago. We just didn't There was no need.
Useful inventions appear haphazardly, and will only catch on if the culture, infrastructure and social attitudes are ripe for them.

The steam engine was invented 2,000 years ago, but there was no automation or locomotives till ~200 years ago.
When I was a boy there were no wheels on luggage. People were hand carrying luggage for thousands of years. Did we evolve a sufficient degree of cleverness only 40 years ago?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
But apes not human type apes didn't have the brains to develop clothing?
@metis: "We don't know if they did or didn't."
Oh, let me try to understand what you're saying here. To clarify, are you saying that non-human apes may have had the brains to develop clothing but did not?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What does all this clothing and writing have to do with evolution, anyway? They had nothing to do with the evolution of modern man.

Cerrtainly they do. Either God developed humans, the ones Darwinian believers say came by natural selection from some Unknown Common Ancestor, or -- they did not.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What does all this clothing and writing have to do with evolution, anyway? They had nothing to do with the evolution of modern man.

We developed in tropical regions, with no need for clothing. The first clothing was decorative, not protective. Modern man was fully developed by the time he moved to regions that required insulation.

Likewise writing. We had the mental capacity to write 20,000 years ago. We just didn't There was no need.
Useful inventions appear haphazardly, and will only catch on if the culture, infrastructure and social attitudes are ripe for them.

The steam engine was invented 2,000 years ago, but there was no automation or locomotives till ~200 years ago.
When I was a boy there were no wheels on luggage. People were hand carrying luggage for thousands of years. Did we evolve a sufficient degree of cleverness only 40 years ago?
I like it <g> when you say "we" (we?) had the capacity for writing 20,000 years ago. You know this how? Because you surmise there was no need for writing? hmmm, I say. And you say this because you figure they wandered the land and didn't need to have contracts, right? And clothing -- odd that monkeys etc. (non-human apes in Darwinian terms) don't feel the need to wear underwear...make panties and sanitary napkins. Yes, I conclude there is a difference so vast in the thinking and creative ability between humans and monkeys, gorillas, etc., cats, etc., that it is insurmountable by human reasoning as far as how it got there.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Cerrtainly they do. Either God developed humans, the ones Darwinian believers say came by natural selection from some Unknown Common Ancestor, or -- they did not.
What you are really saying is either Genesis is literal or it is not. A literal view of Genesis has nothing to do with God. That is the view of some people.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
But apes not human type apes didn't have the brains to develop clothing?
@metis: "We don't know if they did or didn't."
Oh, let me try to understand what you're saying here. To clarify, are you saying that non-human apes may have had the brains to develop clothing but did not?
Ostriches have wings, but they do not fly. Does that mean they are not birds? What about penguins? Bats have wings and fly. Are they birds?
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
I like it <g> when you say "we" (we?) had the capacity for writing 20,000 years ago. You know this how? Because you surmise there was no need for writing? hmmm, I say. And you say this because you figure they wandered the land and didn't need to have contracts, right? And clothing -- odd that monkeys etc. (non-human apes in Darwinian terms) don't feel the need to wear underwear...make panties and sanitary napkins. Yes, I conclude there is a difference so vast in the thinking and creative ability between humans and monkeys, gorillas, etc., cats, etc., that it is insurmountable by human reasoning as far as how it got there.
In summary. No amount of evidence or reason will convince you or get you to understand when you believe something you have no evidence to cite or show. Clearly, belief comes in different levels and qualities.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I like it <g> when you say "we" (we?) had the capacity for writing 20,000 years ago. You know this how?
Because anatomically modern humans were around way before 20,000 years ago. They were around before 100,000 years ago. We have dated fossils and DNA.
Because you surmise there was no need for writing? hmmm, I say. And you say this because you figure they wandered the land and didn't need to have contracts, right? And clothing -- odd that monkeys etc. (non-human apes in Darwinian terms) don't feel the need to wear underwear...make panties and sanitary napkins.
Whether there was a need or not is irrelevant. There was a "need" (use) for insulin, plastic, guns, and wheels on luggage a thousand years ago, too, and we were just as intelligent, yet we never developed these things. The Zeitgeist just wasn't right.
Yes, I conclude there is a difference so vast in the thinking and creative ability between humans and monkeys, gorillas, etc., cats, etc., that it is insurmountable by human reasoning as far as how it got there.
Why? Why can't we figure out how our brains, or any other anatomical or physiological feature, developed? Biology has been figuring these things out for nearly 200 years, and farmers had basic selection down for thousands of years.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
They didn't need clothing. Nor did early humans. Clothing, writing and other technologies developed long after we became brainy.
Early humans didn't need clothing? How do you figure that?
And you say after we (?) became brainy? Are you saying the other Darwinian type apes just aren't as brainy as humans are and that's why they didn't develop
But there are air breathing fish, and fish that can leave the water and walk, even today.
But humans did not "record history" about these fish evolving because ... They just didn't need to...right? And, of course, not enough time according to Darwinian figures has passed to observe genetic evolution real-time by humans, isn't that true for you?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Because anatomically modern humans were around way before 20,000 years ago. They were around before 100,000 years ago. We have dated fossils and DNA.
Whether there was a need or not is irrelevant. There was a "need" (use) for insulin, plastic, guns, and wheels on luggage a thousand years ago, too, and we were just as intelligent, yet we never developed these things. The Zeitgeist just wasn't right.
Why? Why can't we figure out how our brains, or any other anatomical or physiological feature, developed? Biology has been figuring these things out for nearly 200 years, and farmers had basic selection down for thousands of years.
Mixing sheep or vegetation, for example, is not changing on the limbs of the supposed tree of evolution. Same with skin color, shortness or tallness among humans. They're still human
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Because anatomically modern humans were around way before 20,000 years ago. They were around before 100,000 years ago. We have dated fossils and DNA.
Whether there was a need or not is irrelevant. There was a "need" (use) for insulin, plastic, guns, and wheels on luggage a thousand years ago, too, and we were just as intelligent, yet we never developed these things. The Zeitgeist just wasn't right.
Why? Why can't we figure out how our brains, or any other anatomical or physiological feature, developed? Biology has been figuring these things out for nearly 200 years, and farmers had basic selection down for thousands of years.
Another thing...the only thing to explain the gaps of genes from gorillas to humans is imagination.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
What does all this clothing and writing have to do with evolution, anyway? They had nothing to do with the evolution of modern man.

We developed in tropical regions, with no need for clothing. The first clothing was decorative, not protective. Modern man was fully developed by the time he moved to regions that required insulation.

Likewise writing. We had the mental capacity to write 20,000 years ago. We just didn't There was no need.
Useful inventions appear haphazardly, and will only catch on if the culture, infrastructure and social attitudes are ripe for them.

The steam engine was invented 2,000 years ago, but there was no automation or locomotives till ~200 years ago.
When I was a boy there were no wheels on luggage. People were hand carrying luggage for thousands of years. Did we evolve a sufficient degree of cleverness only 40 years ago?

"We developed in tropical regions, with no need for clothing. The first clothing was decorative, not protective. Modern man was fully developed by the time he moved to regions that required insulation."

Europe where neanderthal thrived wasnt tropical.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Because anatomically modern humans were around way before 20,000 years ago. They were around before 100,000 years ago. We have dated fossils and DNA.
Whether there was a need or not is irrelevant. There was a "need" (use) for insulin, plastic, guns, and wheels on luggage a thousand years ago, too, and we were just as intelligent, yet we never developed these things. The Zeitgeist just wasn't right.
Why? Why can't we figure out how our brains, or any other anatomical or physiological feature, developed? Biology has been figuring these things out for nearly 200 years, and farmers had basic selection down for thousands of years.
Learning to read takes time, too. Does not prove or show we evolved from some Unknown Common Ancestor. Gorillas don't teach each other how to read, do they? So their "progress" could be considered limited.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What's that have to do with clothes?
Ok I'll say it again. Hopefully you'll understand. Either God developed humans, the ones Darwinian believers say came by natural selection from some Unknown Common Ancestor or He did not. As I have continually said, I used to accept evolution as the reason 'we' are alive. I no longer do, but...it requires some thinking. And examination and...moreso.
 
Top