Does evolution have a purpose?

[muhammad_isa]

He is a she.

..oh .. fixed that

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

eg. ToE can't prove why humans have evolved in the way they have

The answer to "why" is natural selection.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The answer to "why" is natural selection.

That doesn't explain it, I'm afraid.
You might believe that human's evolved by chance due to an underlying process .. but the odds of that are next to zero.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That doesn't explain it, I'm afraid.

It sure does. Why do bears at the north pole have white fur? Answer: natural selection. White fur against a snowy background makes for easier hunting.

I don't see how you can answer the "why" question for a specific species, or specific traits, with anything other then the selection pressures favoring one over the other.

You might believe that human's evolved by chance due to an underlying process

No. Natural selection is not random / by chance.
Exactly the point.

It's not "by chance" that bears at the north pole have white fur.
It's not "by chance" that bears living in forests are brown.

.. but the odds of that are next to zero.

First, only odds of actual zero means that something is impossible.
Secondly, contemplating odds of an event happening after it already happened, is kind of meaningless.
Third, I'ld love to see the math used to "conclude" those odds.

 

[ratiocinator]

That doesn't explain it, I'm afraid.
You might believe that human's evolved by chance due to an underlying process .. but the odds of that are next to zero.

You're assuming that humans were somehow intended. The odds of anything in particular being the outcome after this amount of time are 'next to zero'. Each time you shuffle a deck of cards, you get a sequence that has a chance of 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000. Mere improbability doesn't mean much unless you assume that that particular outcome is 'special' or intended.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No. Natural selection is not random / by chance.
Exactly the point.

Oh, then what criteria did this non-intelligent process use to create a complex human being?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The odds of anything in particular being the outcome after this amount of time are 'next to zero'..

Tut .. that's pretty meaningless.
I wouldn't say that you can compare a human being with "anything".

 

[ratiocinator]

I wouldn't say that you can compare a human being with "anything".

Why not? Starting out with the assumption that humans were some sort of target or goal is just question begging.

 

[ratiocinator]

Oh, then what criteria did this non-intelligent process use to create a complex human being?

Your question implies a mind, whereas natural selection is something that just happens. To the extent your question can be interpreted as at all meaningful, the answer is: survival and reproductive ability in the context of each population's environment. Individuals that have traits that increase that ability are the ones that survive and reproduce more, and hence pass on their genes more (amazingly enough). The basic idea really isn't that complicated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh, then what criteria did this non-intelligent process use to create a complex human being?

Your question seems to be exposing the invalid assumption that humans were "meant" to exist.
As if the outcome of humans was "intended".

This is not the case.

The criteria for natural selection are circumstantial, generation by generation.
There is no one thing that seperates humans from their primate common ancestor with chimps.

It's about 7 million years of non-stop gradual evolution, generation by generation, that does.
And every generation, there were selection pressures active. Throughout time, those selection pressures changed as the environment changed and the species migrated.

It eventually lead to homo sapiens.
And the same is true for every other species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tut .. that's pretty meaningless.

Why? Because it's a bit to devastating for your case?

Coming up with ridiculous odds after the fact is meaningless.
Consider the example @ratiocinator gave of shuffling a deck of cards.

To get a specific order from that shuffle process, the chances are ridiculously low.
But ANY particular order resulting from the shuffle, has the same probability.

So when you shuffle a deck, observe the order it is in and then contemplate the ridiculously low odds... do you then also conclude that the shuffle had to be "stacked" or whatever? That it's "close to impossible" that that particular outcome were the result? That a "miracle" occured?

Off course not. Any other outcome would be just as unlikely.
So whatever odds you could come up with for humans to evolve (even though the very idea of calculating such odds is ridiculous, since you would have to be sucking the various variables out of your thumb)... the exact same odds would be applicable to any other species.

I wouldn't say that you can compare a human being with "anything".

Why not?
Because of your narcistic religious beliefs that humans are somehow "special"?

When it comes to biology, humans are just a species like any other.

And even if you wish to insist humans are "special", the probability argument remains intact and unaddressed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no one thing that seperates humans from their primate common ancestor with chimps.

It's about 7 million years of non-stop gradual evolution, generation by generation, that does.
...
It eventually lead to homo sapiens.
And the same is true for every other species.

I can only laugh

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why not?
Because of your narcistic religious beliefs that humans are somehow "special"?

Well, clearly we are not all "special"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can only laugh

Can you also explain why you laugh?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, clearly we are not all "special"

Is that supposed to be an ad hominim?

Whenever you can give a reply with a bit of substance in which you actually address the points raised, I'm here for you.

If however all you wish to do is post these juvenile conversation-stopping one liners....

Oh well.

I'll draw my conclusion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your question implies a mind, whereas natural selection is something that just happens..

..and did the elements which natural selection operate on, evolve through natural selection as well?

There’s nothing to tell us exactly how and when life first used DNA. It is mere speculation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..and did the elements which natural selection operate on, evolve through natural selection as well?

"elements"?
What are you talking about?

There’s nothing to tell us exactly how and when life first used DNA. It is mere speculation.

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)



Also, obviously the further back in time we go, the blurrier it gets and the harder it becomes to unravel.

Some questions likely will never be answered.
And that's okay. It doesn't change anything about all the stuff we DO know and all the questions we DID answer.

 

[ratiocinator]

..and did the elements which natural selection operate on, evolve through natural selection as well?

Back to the first things that could reproduce with variation and inheritance, yes.

There’s nothing to tell us exactly how and when life first used DNA. It is mere speculation.

Watch those goalposts move! DNA probably wasn't the start of natural selection, but we don't yet know exactly that the first things that were subject to it were like or how they arose, we just have hypotheses.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"It doesn't change anything about all the stuff we DO know and all the questions we DID answer.

No. Some thing can be categorically proved, whilst others remain an educated guess.
I am not aware that it has been categorically proved that there is no more to human life than a heap of molecules that have evolved for no purpose other than "because they could".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Some thing can be categorically proved, whilst others remain an educated guess.

Neither of your options are representative of scientific theories. Any scientific theory. Not just evolution.
Also atoms, germs, plate tectonics, relativity, .....

None of those are "proven" or will ever be considered "proven".
None of those are "guesses" either.

All of them, are testable and independently verifiable explanatory models of specific phenomena which make testable predictions and which have loads of evidence in support of them and none to contradict it.

So they are bodies of knowledge with great explanatory power supported by evidence.

Not proven. No guesses.

You should read up on what a scientific theory is and how it comes about.

I am not aware that it has been categorically proved that there is no more to human life than a heap of molecules that have evolved for no purpose other than "because they could".

Note the words I bolded.
Note how you are talking about proving a negative.
Note how this is just a badly hidden instance of trying to shift the burden of proof.


If you wish to claim that there is more to human life then there is to any other biological organism - then it's your burden to support that statement.

If you wish to claim that there is some cosmic significance to human life beyond that which we observe, then it's your burden to support that statement.

Failure to do so will only result in me being in my full rights to simply handwave away your baseless claims.

And trying to turn it around by saying "but you can you prove that these things are NOT the case???" is blatantly shifting the burden of proof.