Does evolution have a purpose?

[muhammad_isa]

The objective verifiable 'cause' of evolution is Natural Law and natural processes..

That doesn't really mean anything.
What does the word "natural" mean in this context?

 

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't really mean anything.
What does the word "natural" mean in this context?

Natural in the scientific context is physical 'Nature' of our physical existence has a predictable consistent 'objective verifiable evidence'' that demonstrates that our physical existence is based on 'physical' Natural Laws and natural processes.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Natural in the scientific context is physical 'Nature' of our physical existence has a predictable consistent 'objective verifiable evidence'' that demonstrates that our physical existence is based on 'physical' Natural Laws and natural processes.

..yes and they just "happen to be".
Do you think that these "natural laws" evolved, or are they constant?

 

[YoursTrue]

What does thinking have to do with purpose?

Thinking is different among ants and humans, isn't it?
So you raise an interesting point. But sometimes it's probably better not to go into depth about something because -- I don't know too much about ants and how much they 'think.' I know if I see an ant on top of my counter I usually knock it out by putting my finger on it and killing it.
Thinking can affect action, and maybe not, but maybe you think ants think so they figure what to do by making decisions? So the question is does evolution have a purpose.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I have a Masters in geology and over 50 years professional experience in Geology.


The insult is you have absolutely no education and experience in the fields related to evolution, and you have failed to present 'one' peer reviewed scientific article to support your assertions with a religious agenda.

As usual you event misrepresent the basics of how science works. Proof is for logic and math, and not science. Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence. There is abundant evidence from physical stratigraphy correlated with radiometric dating, and geomorphological evidence of erosions and deposition. On the other hand there is absolutely no evidence for the Biblical account nor a Biblical flood.

So you say. So you go with what you discern from your teachers. Yet your teachers have proven to be wrong again and again with many of their assumptions and conclusions and then you give that up by saying, "well, that's science." You assume evolution just happened. You have no proof. I notice you keep saying I'm uneducated, etc., yet offer no substance to back up your beliefs about time dating. Peer review is almost a joke, but I'm not saying it's not necessary. Even though it can be careless and prejudiced. There ARE scientists who question the validity of Darwinian presumption.
You are an arrogant person. There have been discoveries of underground cities, underwater cities, you have not given one iota of defense of explaining (and by explain I don't mean offering a link to someone else's thinking...but your own) dating process with sludges, landslides, and more. Geology can be interesting, minerals, etc., are interesting. But your arrogance supersedes it all.

 

[YoursTrue]

The question has been answered repeatedly and you choose to ignore the responses

The objective verifiable 'cause' of evolution is Natural Law and natural processes. Any purpose beyond this would be a theological/philosophical 'belief' in a purpose claim from the perspective of many diverse conflicting subjective religious world views, and not science.

Since you do not believe in evolution what is the purpose of questioning whether 'evolution' has a purpose.

Let me make one thing clear here. Sheep can be bred to produce particular characteristics. That is not evolution as you understand it. There is not ONE iota of evidence that fish became anything but fish. You can produce all the fossils you want -- but they don't show that fish evolved to be anything other than -- you got it -- fish. Say what you will about me, how "uneducated" I am -- there is not one bit of proof of real evidence that fish became anything but -- fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

The question has been answered repeatedly and you choose to ignore the responses

The objective verifiable 'cause' of evolution is Natural Law and natural processes. Any purpose beyond this would be a theological/philosophical 'belief' in a purpose claim from the perspective of many diverse conflicting subjective religious world views, and not science.

Since you do not believe in evolution what is the purpose of questioning whether 'evolution' has a purpose.

Again -- you use terms that have no real meaning like 'natural law' as if that backs up your argument. Are there natural laws? Yes, of course. People give birth to people, not fish. Fish don't give birth people. Oh please do mention that it takes time, ok? lol. I know you believe this.
Do these natural laws produce fish that became total land animals? There is no proof, not one iota. Fossils that show fish like animals with legs? Yes. Does that prove evolution? Not as far as I'm concerned. It proves that there are things that look like fish but can crawl for a while on the ground. Does that prove evolution? Are natural laws confined? That's for you to answer.

 

[Valjean]

Thinking is different among ants and humans, isn't it?
So you raise an interesting point. But sometimes it's probably better not to go into depth about something because -- I don't know too much about ants and how much they 'think.' I know if I see an ant on top of my counter I usually knock it out by putting my finger on it and killing it.
Thinking can affect action, and maybe not, but maybe you think ants think so they figure what to do by making decisions? So the question is does evolution have a purpose.

So "thinking" is an indication of.... purpose? design?
I'm still not seeing the correlation of thinking with whatever you're trying to correlate it with.

 

[Valjean]

Again -- you use terms that have no real meaning like 'natural law' as if that backs up your argument. Are there natural laws? Yes, of course. People give birth to people, not fish. Fish don't give birth people. Oh please do mention that it takes time, ok? lol. I know you believe this.

You don't understand what a natural law is; a Law of Nature?

Do these natural laws produce fish that became total land animals? There is no proof, not one iota.

Yes, they do, and did. Do you think all the plants and animals just popped into existence, all at once? -- "There's no proof, not one iota." Indeed, it seems totally ridiculous. If such a story were to appear in tomorrow's paper, nobody would believe it.
There are plenty of living, water-to-land and land-to-water transitional forms, even today.
Proof? No. Evidence? Yes.

And quit it with this "proof" stuff. How many times have we called you on this? Are you really this obtuse, or do you just have no memory?
There is no proof! Of anything, outside of mathematics. There arejust degrees of evidence.

Fossils that show fish like animals with legs? Yes. Does that prove evolution? Not as far as I'm concerned. It proves that there are things that look like fish but can crawl for a while on the ground. Does that prove evolution? Are natural laws confined? That's for you to answer.

Show us the "proof," or even some evidence, of this creationism you seem to find so reasonable. I daresay you will never believe anything but church doctrine, no matter what evidence we give you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again -- you use terms that have no real meaning like 'natural law' as if that backs up your argument. Are there natural laws? Yes, of course. People give birth to people, not fish. Fish don't give birth people. Oh please do mention that it takes time, ok? lol. I know you believe this.

Your ignorance of science and the overwhelming dominance of an ancient religious agenda presents any constructive dialogue.

Do these natural laws produce fish that became total land animals? [/quote[

Yes through evolution over hundreds of millions of years by the objective verifiable evidence.


There is no proof, not one iota. Fossils that show fish like animals with legs? Yes. Does that prove evolution? Not as far as I'm concerned. It proves that there are things that look like fish but can crawl for a while on the ground. Does that prove evolution? Are natural laws confined? That's for you to answer.

"As I am concerned????" No meaning as far as the objective verifiable evidence for evolution Your misuse of 'proof' in terms of science is unethical and appalling.

Again . . . Your ignorance of science and the overwhelming dominance of an ancient religious agenda presents any constructive dialogue.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me make one thing clear here. Sheep can be bred to produce particular characteristics. That is not evolution as you understand it. There is not ONE iota of evidence that fish became anything but fish. You can produce all the fossils you want -- but they don't show that fish evolved to be anything other than -- you got it -- fish. Say what you will about me, how "uneducated" I am -- there is not one bit of proof of real evidence that fish became anything but -- fish.

Again . . . "as you understand" has no meaning, because your ignorant of science with an ancient religious agenda.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again . . . "as you understand" has no meaning, because your ignorant of science with an ancient religious agenda.

lol ok

 

[YoursTrue]

Your ignorance of science and the overwhelming dominance of an ancient religious agenda presents any constructive dialogue.




"As I am concerned????" No meaning as far as the objective verifiable evidence for evolution Your misuse of 'proof' in terms of science is unethical and appalling.

Again . . . Your ignorance of science and the overwhelming dominance of an ancient religious agenda presents any constructive dialogue.

Well, it's been somewhat interesting in hearing your insults, etc. -) Proving what others have encountered when an "educated"person dares question the theory. Others far more educated than I in the vicissitudes of evolution have experienced the disdain such as you demonstrate towards those who question the theory. Yet to this date absolutely no material has been found to verify that fish evolved to landrovers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..yes and they just "happen to be".
Do you think that these "natural laws" evolved, or are they constant?

Natural law is about how reality works as a result of how the various forces interact with eachother and how it affects stuff.

They seem pretty constant.
For example, I can drop an object with mass in a vaccuum a million times over and it will fall to earth with an acceleration of 9.81 meters per second per second. Every. Single. Time.

Physics doesn't change.
It's why you can read this message.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you say. So you go with what you discern from your teachers. Yet your teachers have proven to be wrong again and again with many of their assumptions and conclusions and then you give that up by saying, "well, that's science."

It's called "learning" and "progress".
It's a good thing.

ps: your creation myth, is one of those things that have been shown to be wrong. Quite a long time ago, actually.

You assume evolution just happened. You have no proof.

Evolution factually occurred, occurs and will continue to occur as long as there are living systems reproducing with variation and competing over limited resources in an ever-changing environment. This is no longer up for debate. Hasn't been for quite a long time now.

I notice you keep saying I'm uneducated, etc., yet offer no substance to back up your beliefs about time dating. Peer review is almost a joke, but I'm not saying it's not necessary. Even though it can be careless and prejudiced. There ARE scientists who question the validity of Darwinian presumption.

There are also "scientists" that question a spherical earth.
So what?

Marginal outliners don't make up for consensus or evidence based reality.

You are an arrogant person.

Says the guy who, without credentials or qualifications, thinks he knows better then pretty much the entire scientific community.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me make one thing clear here. Sheep can be bred to produce particular characteristics. That is not evolution as you understand it

Except that it is.

There is not ONE iota of evidence that fish became anything but fish.

DNA.

You can produce all the fossils you want -- but they don't show that fish evolved to be anything other than -- you got it -- fish.

Tiktaalik.
Found by prediction.

Say what you will about me, how "uneducated" I am -- there is not one bit of proof of real evidence that fish became anything but -- fish.

DNA.
Tiktaalik.

But you can continue sticking your head in the sand.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Physics doesn't change.
It's why you can read this message.

I agree with you.

The objective verifiable 'cause' of evolution is Natural Law and natural processes.

How can one say that "physics" is a cause?
One needs to show where the "natural laws" came from, in order for that statement to be meaningful.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People give birth to people, not fish. Fish don't give birth people.

Do you remember how many times I've explained to you that if that would happen, evolution would be falsified?
I don't. I lost count.

Here you are, still repeating the same falsehoods that have been corrected countless times over.
Why do you insist on doubling down on your mistakes?

What do you hope to accomplish by arguing against a solid scientific theory by misrepresenting / strawmanning it?

Oh please do mention that it takes time, ok? lol. I know you believe this.

It's a fact. Evolution is a gradual process. It works by the accumulation of small micro changes generation by generation.

Species A giving birth to species B is as likely as a latin speaking mother giving birth to a spanish speaking child.

Do these natural laws produce fish that became total land animals?

Over time, yes.
And the other way round also. Whales and dolphins used to be total land animals.

There is no proof, not one iota

DNA.
Fossils found by prediction.

. Fossils that show fish like animals with legs?

Which would be expected if a gradual process like evolution happens.
So such animals are indeed evidence in support of such a theory.
Exceptionally good evidence even, if the fossils are found by prediction in terms of age and anatomical characteristics. Which is the case.

So.... yeah. There goes your claim that there is no evidence.

Yes. Does that prove evolution?

Theories are never considered "proven".
Learn2science.

Not as far as I'm concerned.

Or anyone else. Especially those who actually understand what a scientific theory is.

It proves that there are things that look like fish but can crawl for a while on the ground.

As predicted by evolution.

Does that prove evolution?

It supports evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree with you.


How can one say that "physics" is a cause?

For the reason you agreed with me.

Again, physics is about how the various forces interact and how it affects stuff.
These "rules", if you want to call it that, is why 2 H atoms and an O atom will form H2O.
Life at bottom is just complex carbon based chemistry.

One needs to show where the "natural laws" came from, in order for that statement to be meaningful.

No. Natural laws exist - regardless of where they originated from.
Because they exist, we can invoke them as the cause of things.

As an analogy, if an asteroid smashes into my house and destroys it, then I can say that the destruction of my house was caused by said asteroid.

I don't need to know where the asteroid originated from and how it formed billions of years ago, to reasonably be able to invoke it as the cause of the destruction of my house.

Same with my example of dropping things with mass in a vaccuum. I can reasonably invoke the force of gravity as the cause for those things falling to earth. Without knowing where gravity comes from. Or even how gravity works. The point is that it objectively, demonstrably, exists. This means I can invoke / determine it as the cause of things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

No. Natural laws exist - regardless of where they originated from.
...

Well. I understand that differently all the way to this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

So we do how science works different, for which you of course with evidence are correct and I am not.