• 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

muhammad_isa

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

The vast majority of people know that there are "natural laws".
It is circular reasoning, to say that "observed natural laws" are the cause of another observed natural law [ evolution ]

We need to think about where the natural laws originate.
You have already agreed with me that natural laws probably don't evolve :)
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The vast majority of people know that there are "natural laws".
It is circular reasoning, to say that "observed natural laws" are the cause of another observed natural law [ evolution ]

Evolution is not a natural law.
It's a process, subject to natural law.

We need to think about where the natural laws originate.

Sure, but that's not within the scope of the study of processes / phenomenon subject to natural law; which happen within the context of existing natural law.

Why would we need to know why physics works the way it does in order to be able to study phenomenon of biology?

Life exists and we can study it.
We don't need to know the origins of "physics" or the origins of life itself, to be able to study existing life and the processes it is subject to.

You have already agreed with me that natural laws probably don't evolve :)

So?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How can one say that "physics" is a cause?
If I hold a rock over your foot and dropped it, mass, gravity, energy, &c will "cause" a broken foot. Physics causes your car to go and planes to fly; your food to cook, and rain to fall. Almost everything is caused by physics, either directly or indirectly.
One needs to show where the "natural laws" came from, in order for that statement to be meaningful.
One doesn't need to understand the origin of natural law to understand its effects and to use it productively.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The vast majority of people know that there are "natural laws".
It is circular reasoning, to say that "observed natural laws" are the cause of another observed natural law [ evolution ]
Evolution isn't a natural law. Evolution is a fact: that living things change over time; and the Theory of evolution is a descrciption or explanation of the process by which this happens.

We need to think about where the natural laws originate.
No, we don't. They exist and they work. We can still use them, without understanding their origins.
I don't need to know the origins of wheat or of my slices of bread to make a sandwich with them.

Researching origins is the job of physicists, and, unlike theologians, they're actively working at it.
 

Shadow11

Member
When a human goes into space certain genes shut off and others turn on showing the body attempting to adapt to the environment. This has been proven. This is what happens in nature with the genetic code - genes are turning on and off to adapt to the environment. An example is a tendon in your wrist in future humans they won't exist because its not needed - we have lost our strength - an ape is 3 to 4 times stronger than a human. The body is adapting as we speak we are actually becoming weaker because of our new environment..
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Why would we need to know why physics works the way it does in order to be able to study phenomenon of biology?

I can ensure you that it helps.
That is the trouble with specialisation. We can become blinkered, as we don't have a broad enough base to make reasonable conclusions.

I concede to you that natural laws are "the cause" of the process known as natural selection, for example.
..but as we all know, the process of evolution needs something to evolve from. There must be a reason why things behave as they do. It is more than just the laws of physics, which as you say do not evolve.

I observe that things don't happen by chance .. that it is not possible that the process of evolution is some kind of accident, or happened by chance.
The laws of physics haven't happened by chance, imo. They have an origin.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Which of the 5 versions is that? All 5?

The bottom line in philosophy of science is Methodological Naturalism as proposed by Popper In the Wikipedia reference ALL five.

Methodological Naturalism is based on simply 'objective verifiable evidence,' and nothing else, in the falsification of theories and hypothesis, The result is the evolving vody of knowledge of science on a firm foundation. Science does not deal in proofs they are the realm of math and philosophy. Subjective beliefs and views of religion and philosophy are not falsifiable by scientific methods.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I can ensure you that it helps.

How? Be specific.

I concede to you that natural laws are "the cause" of the process known as natural selection, for example.
..but as we all know, the process of evolution needs something to evolve from.

Things evolve in future generations from previous generations.
So I'm not sure what your point is.
I'm smelling the same species of mistake here... that evolution theory somehow, in your opinion, must account for the origins of life itself. The fact is that it doesn't.

Life exists and we can study it.
Finding out tomorrow how life originated on this planet, will not change everything we know about how genetics, for example, works in already existing life.

There must be a reason why things behave as they do.

Why?
And/or what "things" are you talking about and what kind of behaviour?

Why "must" there be a reason, other then the mere existence physical processes?

Say we have a deck of cards and a machine that randomly shuffles the cards and then spits out 5 of them.
Suppose we get a royal flush.
"must" there be a reason for that specific string of cards?
SOME combination is going to be spit out by the mechanism. A royal flush has the exact same probability as any other specific combination of cards.

Is it likely? No. It's as unlikely as any other specific combination of cards.

It is more than just the laws of physics

Why do you think that?


I observe that things don't happen by chance .. that it is not possible that the process of evolution is some kind of accident, or happened by chance.

Natural selection is not an "accident" nor is it "random chance".
It is not an "accident" that bears at the north pole tend to be white, while bears living in the forest tend to be brown.

The laws of physics haven't happened by chance, imo. They have an origin.

You don't know that. You just believe that because your religious beliefs require you to.

I don't know why the laws of physics are as they are. Nobody really does.
It could be out of necessity. As in: only a universe with laws as the ones we observe in this universe can actually sustain itself. So then it is no surprise that the universe is as it is, or we wouldn't be able to ask the question, since we wouldn't exist.

There's also the idea of a multi-verse, which brings forward near infinite amounts of universes, each with their own, perhaps "randomized", set of laws and we originated, evolved and live in a universe in which the laws allow for such to occur.

There's a whole range of possibilities there.
We simply don't know. You don't either. You have religious beliefs instead.

But, more importantly to the point of this particular discussion... NO MATTER how they originated: they are what they are and they exist, and everything that happens in this universe happens in context of them. So finding out why they are how they are, won't change anything about how they are.

So knowledge of how they originated, is not going to make any difference to any and all observations we make in reality. Because they are how they are.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If I hold a rock over your foot and dropped it, mass, gravity, energy, &c will "cause" a broken foot. Physics causes your car to go and planes to fly; your food to cook, and rain to fall. Almost everything is caused by physics, either directly or indirectly.
One doesn't need to understand the origin of natural law to understand its effects and to use it productively.

The origin, cause and 'purpose' of Natural Laws is a subjective view, with many diverse conflicting beliefs, of Theology and Philosophy, and cannot be falsified by Methodological Naturalism.

Methodological Naturalism only deals with the predictability of theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence only.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I observe that things don't happen by chance .. that it is not possible that the process of evolution is some kind of accident, or happened by chance. The laws of physics haven't happened by chance, imo. They have an origin.

There is no falsifiable element of chance nor randomness in the nature of our physical existence. I will follow up with the 'nature of chance and randomness' and the reasons that they do not apply to the scientific reality of the nature of our physical existence. Science has determined that the nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic. Chance and randomness would describe unpredictability, inability to establish cause and effect, and subjective factors such as theology nd philosophy cannot be falsified by scientific methods.

At present science has not falsified anything coming about by chance.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The bottom line in philosophy of science is Methodological Naturalism as proposed by Popper In the Wikipedia reference ALL five.

Methodological Naturalism is based on simply 'objective verifiable evidence,' and nothing else, in the falsification of theories and hypothesis, The result is the evolving vody of knowledge of science on a firm foundation. Science does not deal in proofs they are the realm of math and philosophy. Subjective beliefs and views of religion and philosophy are not falsifiable by scientific methods.

Well, so coherentism is the same as methodological naturalism. Okay.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No, it has not.

How then?

By the consistent predictable Natural Laws'

This addresses the question of randomness in nature:

Nothing is truly 'random' in nature.

The question of randomness often comes up in dialogues involving evolution vs. creationism, and the nature and history of our physical existence. This directly relates to the flawed probabilities used Intelligent Design Creationist advocates.

My proposition is: The nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic by Natural Laws, natural processes and nothing is truly 'random.' This does not mean we have a 'clock works' mechanistic Newtonian physical existence. What is observed in nature is the 'random' occurance of individual events, such as the 'random' occurrence of the 'timing' of individual events in mutations in genes, and the timing of events at the Quanta level of 'Quantum' events. Despite the 'randomness' of individual events, the pattern of the chain of events over time is predictable and 'not random.' This predictable pattern in nature is the basis of Methodological Naturalism where predictable hypothesis can be falsified as the basis of scientific knowledge.

What is observed in the nature of our physical existence is the observed predictable fractal nature (Chaos Theory) of chains of natural events when there are many variables of the system of events, such as in weather patterns and predictions.

Fractal patterns dominate nature for example: Not two Maple leaves are exactly alike, but all Maple leaves look like Maple leaves.

Complexity of variables influences the randomness of events. For example: The very simple geometry of small snowflakes may result in two snow flakes that area like, but beyond the most simple snowflakes the variables of snowflake formation result in no two snowflakes look alike, but they all look like snowflakes

Example:

Source: Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text"
Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text[/URL]]

Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating entities, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next. That this process can be encapsulated within a single (admittedly lengthy) sentence should not diminish the appreciation of its profundity and power. It is one of the core mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the main process responsible for the complexity and adaptive intricacy of the living world. According to philosopher Daniel Dennett (1995), this qualifies evolution by natural selection as “the single best idea anyone has ever had.”

© Copyright Original Source



In Quantum Mechanics:

Source: Random definition"
Random definition[/URL]]

Randomness in QM means that the outcome of individual experiments cannot be predicted. Only the average outcome of many, many experiments can be predicted. There are some exceptions. For example, if 1000 identical particles are prepared in identical energy eigenstates, you can measure the energy of each particle, and you will get the same answer for all of them. But this is not true for all experiments. If instead of measuring energy, you can measure the position of each particle, you will find a different position for each particle.

© Copyright Original Source



The attempts to define mutations as random or non-random is equally problematic.

Randomness in genetic mutations:

Source: Edge.org"
Edge.org[/URL]]

What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.

On the contrary, there's much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism's predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.

© Copyright Original Source



There is a specific limited classes of mutations that are sometimes called 'non-random(?), but the 'timing' of the occurrence of these mutations is also 'random,' but the occurrence of these mutations is related to specific gene patterns such as the doubling of certain parts genes repeated predictably over time.

There are many layman common terminology misuse of random throughout including math misuse.

For example Random number generators are not truly random. Random number generators are logical predictive programs that choose numbers within specific parameters. Even though the choice of individual numbers cannot be specifically predicted the pattern of the numbers chosen is predictable to follow a fractal pattern over time.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic by Natural Laws, natural processes and nothing is truly 'random.'

That depends entirely on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, so it's not a settled question.
Randomness in QM means that the outcome of individual experiments cannot be predicted.

Exactly. The probabilities are determined but the outcome of any individual measurement is random.

As for mutations (which wasn't really my point), although there are patterns, even if they are not truly random, they are effectively random with respect to the overall process of evolution by natural selection, it's natural selection which isn't random.
For example Random number generators are not truly random.

Generally speaking, no. However there are hardware devices that use quantum effects to produce truly random numbers.

None of the links in your post actually work.
 
Top