Does evolution have a purpose?

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know your mother. By the way, I didn't say the Pope is a heretic. I was reading a news report, a Greek Orthodox cleric said it. Religious bigotry, you say? I remember when I first learned about the "Great Schism." Quite interesting, while the teacher of history didn't go into great detail, I never forgot her statement. Fascinating, I thought. I guess the disparate entities just didn't quite believe each other. I will also not forget how she said the history of Europe changed from that time on. I was fascinated, but not that much caring much about it until later in life.
Look, if you believe in evolution as the prime mover of life, and you believe the Bible is filled with myths, as well as that perhaps Jesus never really existed as described, at this point it becomes interesting in terms of human opinion and population. Now IF someone claims to be agnostic or atheistic, that's one thing.

No one believes that evolution is the prime mover of life or some sort of god-like force. That is just another straw man you persist in propagandizing in lieu of evidence.

The theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory that explains the evidence, has formed the basis for successful predictions and fits that evidence better than any other explanation. Unlike you, it remains open to change given the discovery of new evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you believe that "God Created our physical existence naturally qirh a Divine purpose." How do you know that?

I find it interesting and telling that a person that rejects evidence and denies valid scientific conclusions based on a particular religious doctrine they have chosen to believe and follow would question the religious beliefs of others. You cannot demonstrate what you believe is fact. None of us can.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just repeating something does not make it so. I've now posted two different references that say that Popper (who you keep on referring to) did not accept determinism (even in the Newtonian case). You have provided absolutely nothing except assertion and a discussion on another forum. You have still provided nothing with any credibility to support your claim in #734, that science has "determined that the nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic", despite the fact that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics tells us we can (in general) only predict the probabilities of the values of observables. If you can't, you can't. If you can, see no reason why you haven't.

By now I've actually provided more support for your assertion than you have, but it's just conjecture.

I also have no idea what you think my "agenda" is, I'm just making a technical point based on my own education and interests. Whether, for example, many worlds or Gerard ’t Hooft's cellular automaton interpretation turn out to be correct (or any other that would make QM deterministic) would be fascinating but would in no way disappoint me in terms of any "agenda". I have no personal interest in whether the universe is deterministic or not.

Still remains you are stuck in the archaic Newtonian Causal Determinism, and dishonestly selectively citing references to justify your agenda.

My case stated and references given do your own homework particularly Popper. I do not spoon feed.

 

[ratiocinator]

Still remains you are stuck in the archaic Newtonian Causal Determinism, and dishonestly selectively citing references to justify your agenda.

Thought-free repetition is not impressive or an argument. Also you're accusing me of dishonestly being selective. Is there some reason why you're resorting to an ad hominem fallacy instead of answering my points?

My case stated and references given...

Your references to date have consisted of somebody's puzzle page and a conversation on a discussion forum. You have made no attempt to explain what you mean by 'determinism' that differs from "Newtonian Causal Determinism".

...do your own homework particularly Popper.

I've now given you two references, one actually written by Popper and one from Scientific America about him. Neither of which were selected and both of which contradict the idea that he believed determinism. I have yet to find a single reference that says that he did. Since he was a philosopher of science and not an actual scientist, I'm not sure he can really be counted as an authority anyway.

I'd actually be interested in an explanation of what you mean, with a proper reference to the science and how it relates to the formalism of quantum mechanics, but you seem too caught up in childish insults and avoidance to engage in an adult discussion. If you don't want to properly back up what you said, then fine but I don't really get why you've become so hostile.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thought-free repetition is not impressive or an argument. Also you're accusing me of dishonestly being selective. Is there some reason why you're resorting to an ad hominem fallacy instead of answering my points?


Your references to date have consisted of somebody's puzzle page and a conversation on a discussion forum. You have made no attempt to explain what you mean by 'determinism' that differs from "Newtonian Causal Determinism".


I've now given you two references, one actually written by Popper and one from Scientific America about him. Neither of which were selected and both of which contradict the idea that he believed determinism. I have yet to find a single reference that says that he did. Since he was a philosopher of science and not an actual scientist, I'm not sure he can really be counted as an authority anyway.

I'd actually be interested in an explanation of what you mean, with a proper reference to the science and how it relates to the formalism of quantum mechanics, but you seem too caught up in childish insults and avoidance to engage in an adult discussion. If you don't want to properly back up what you said, then fine but I don't really get why you've become so hostile.

Reference given. Look up Popper for my view. Popper's view apples to ALL science including Quantum Mechanics.

 

[ratiocinator]

Reference given.

I don't regard a puzzle page (that doesn't even address the problem) and another discussion forum as references.

Look up Popper for my view.

I did.

Popper's view apples to ALL science including Quantum Mechanics.

He wrote about the philosophy of science.

Anyway as you can't be bothered to answer or give a proper reference, I've had enough, this is pointless.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He wrote about the philosophy of science.

What's wrong with that?

"freedom is not just chance but, rather, the result of a subtle interplay between something almost random or haphazard, and something like a restrictive or selective control."
-Popper-

It seems to me that he didn't consider it to be one or the other.

i.e. chance or determined

 

[ratiocinator]

What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with it per se, it's just a different subject.

It seems to me that he didn't consider it to be one or the other.

Freedom in the sense of 'free will' doesn't really make any sense in the way many people think of it. The compatibilist version makes sense (at least from a human point of view) but adding a random element (either true randomness or effective randomness) can't really give you more freedom.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't regard a puzzle page (that doesn't even address the problem) and another discussion forum as references.


I did.


He wrote about the philosophy of science.

Anyway as you can't be bothered to answer or give a proper reference, I've had enough, this is pointless.

If you are not going to do your own homework were doen, The reference was NOT just a bunch of puzzles.

 

[England my lionheart]

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

survival,improvise adapt and overcome imo.

 

[Valjean]

lol...some think a theory is a law, don't they? And yet (let me put it this way) -- seems proof is not included for a theory, is it? OR -- science. (Is it?) Anyway, at this point, I'll say it again -- regardless of gorillas and chimpanzees maybe looking like humans -- cats looking like mini lions -- t h e r e .. i s .. n o .. proof of -- evolution. none. One might consider it proof. But -- it's not really. (Take it as you will. Because if it's not proof, what is it? And if evolution from the 'beginning' didn't 'just happen' by um -- "natural selection," then what's left? hmm?)

No, noōne thinks a theory is a law. This, too has been explained to you, but you consistently either forget or don't understand our posts. As for this obsession with proof that you seem to have, there's not proof in ANYTHING, but maths and alcohol. Our whole perception of the world whole is based, not on proof, but on varying degrees of evidence. There's a lot of tested evidence supporting the germ theory, for example, much less supporting a Loch Ness monster, and nothing but invented evidence supporting your Christianity -- t h e r e .. i s .. n o .. proof of -- Jehova. none.

And now you bring up a classic False Dichotomy, AKA: Black or White fallacy. If no evolution: GOD!

 

[Valjean]

oh boy you're helping me to say it again. Theories are -- conjectural assumptions. What did Newton say? anyway -- it's been interesting checking these things out.

You haven't checked anything out. Despite all our explanations you're still making up your own definitions and constructing straw men with them.

YoursTrue said: ↑
lol, objective VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE??? What? objective verifiable evidence? lolol... verifiable?

The evidence we repeatedly point out to you, and you repeatedly ignore.

You have no idea why 'scientists' believe whales evolved, do you? You don't understand evolution. You don't understand evidence, and are entirely -- and willfully -- ignorant of the whole scientific process of assessing reality. You argue endlessly against subjects you completely misunderstand, as your posts make clear.

 

[muhammad_isa]

the reference was NOT just a bunch of puzzles.

Well, I couldn't make a lot of sense of your ref. either.
Can't you give a link to a simplified version of Popper's view?

 

[YoursTrue]

You haven't checked anything out. Despite all our explanations you're still making up your own definitions and constructing straw men with them.
The evidence we repeatedly point out to you, and you repeatedly ignore.

You have no idea why 'scientists' believe whales evolved, do you? You don't understand evolution. You don't understand evidence, and are entirely -- and willfully -- ignorant of the whole scientific process of assessing reality. You argue endlessly against subjects you completely misunderstand, as your posts make clear.

I've read "peer reviewed" articles on the subjects. Many things are conjectured in these articles with no reference to "scientific evidence." Next time I come across this type of claim I'll let you know. Further, while fossils are found (that's 'evidence' of something that was alive as far as I'm concerned), the ideas that the branches in the tree of evolutionary theory are true simply doesn't make sense to me - anymore. As I told you, I used to believe these things without question, as if the books were telling me the truth and nothing but. I no longer do. And, as I keep saying, while fish are fish (and not gorillas), there is no evidence that fish and gorillas evolved from a chance meeting of molecules (?) 'in the beginning.'

 

[YoursTrue]

No, noōne thinks a theory is a law. This, too has been explained to you, but you consistently either forget or don't understand our posts. As for this obsession with proof that you seem to have, there's not proof in ANYTHING, but maths and alcohol. Our whole perception of the world whole is based, not on proof, but on varying degrees of evidence. There's a lot of tested evidence supporting the germ theory, for example, much less supporting a Loch Ness monster, and nothing but invented evidence supporting your Christianity -- t h e r e .. i s .. n o .. proof of -- Jehova. none.

And now you bring up a classic False Dichotomy, AKA: Black or White fallacy. If no evolution: GOD!

I see your point there, Valjean. Some would say it's a fact, <smile> not a theory. And a fact is not a law? So it's not the LAW of evolution, but rather the fact as far as you and others are concerned, right? I don't believe it's a fact, obviously some do. As far as evidence, I am sitting here in my living room with my computer. That's a fact. Do I ask you to believe it? Not really. I believe it because I KNOW it's true. You can doubt it and I can see why. Sometime semantics can distort an issue. But as far as "I" see -- I think we have different views of how life began and continued. (I say continued and not evolved because I am sure by this time we have different ideas on how things like plants and animals came about.)

 

[YoursTrue]

No, noōne thinks a theory is a law. This, too has been explained to you, but you consistently either forget or don't understand our posts. As for this obsession with proof that you seem to have, there's not proof in ANYTHING, but maths and alcohol. Our whole perception of the world whole is based, not on proof, but on varying degrees of evidence. There's a lot of tested evidence supporting the germ theory, for example, much less supporting a Loch Ness monster, and nothing but invented evidence supporting your Christianity -- t h e r e .. i s .. n o .. proof of -- Jehova. none.

And now you bring up a classic False Dichotomy, AKA: Black or White fallacy. If no evolution: GOD!

Look, if you're going to tell me that maybe the world is not a ball-type thing but maybe it's flat -- I think it's about time we consider the argument closed because then we're dealing with semantics, proof, no proof, maybe yes, maybe it's a fact, yes I agree the earth being like a ball not a disc is not a LAW but it's a fact. As far as I am concerned. There is no doubt. On the other hand, I have learned that some would argue that it is a disc and not a ball-type thing. Similarly, at this point, as I said, because there is no absolute physical proof either/or that plants and animals evolved by some mechanism (not, of course, a LAW according to some), I think it's time we conclude. Although I'm willing to continue. Maybe. to an extent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In actuality, the ancestor commonly thought of as a "common ancestor" is still v-e-r-y conjectural. Very to the point as being virtually unknown. Which again makes me wonder -- ancestors to chimpanzees? Gorillas? bonobos? hmmm....I'm sure there's always something to learn. Or postulate on. -) Now then -- the question is what IS a species?

There's a difference between determining common ancestry on the one hand and identifying the common ancestor on the other.

Creationists tend to not comprehend this - deliberately or otherwise.

For example.... we can take DNA of you and some other person and determine that you are distant cousins, with a common ancestor say 10-ish generations ago.
Chances are enormous that you'll never find out who that common ancestor was.
But that you and that distant cousin do share that common ancestry, would remain a genetic fact.


Common ancestry between humans and the other primates is no different.
That we share ancestors, is a genetic fact.

That we will one day identify that ancestor is quite unlikely actually, since the vast majority of species that ever lived and will live, do not leave fossils behind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. the ideas that the branches in the tree of evolutionary theory are true simply doesn't make sense to me - anymore. As I told you, I used to believe these things without question, as if the books were telling me the truth and nothing but. I no longer do. And, as I keep saying, while fish are fish (and not gorillas), there is no evidence that fish and gorillas evolved from a chance meeting of molecules (?) 'in the beginning.'

What made you change your belief? Of course, fish are fish and gorillas are gorillas. You formerly believed this without question. That was the first mistake. Nothing should be accepted without question and evidence. Now you believe humans to be created by a God from mud/soil (whatever) and women from man's ribs, that is the second mistake. What evidence you have for it?

I don't believe it's a fact, obviously some do. .. I think we have different views of how life began and continued. (I say continued and not evolved because I am sure by this time we have different ideas on how things like plants and animals came about.)

What difference does it make if you or I believe or do not believe in something? There are eight billion of us and we have many different beliefs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you believe humans to be created by a God from mud/soil (whatever) and women from man's ribs, that is the second mistake. What evidence you have for it?

Ever heard of figuratively speaking?
Ever heard of clay soil, that contains minerals?
Ever heard that women are a complement for men?

Exactly how we were created is neither here nor there.
It remains that we are fundamentally different from other physical creatures.
Is it a freak of nature that humans just happen to be what they are?
I don't see any other creatures reading scriptures

 

[Aupmanyav]

Look, if you're going to tell me that maybe the world is not a ball-type thing but maybe it's flat .. Similarly, at this point, as I said, because there is no absolute physical proof either/or that plants and animals evolved ..

The earth of course is a near sphere, but if you talk of universe, it could be of any shape, science is not sure about that. There is ample proof of evolution of species and sub-species, but if you are bent on dismissing that, nothing much can be done about it.

Shape of universe (Shape of the universe - Wikipedia):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...End_of_universe.jpg/275px-End_of_universe.jpg