Does evolution have a purpose?

[gnostic]

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".

Like some other members have done before you, you are confusing “proof” with “evidence”.

(a) Scientists test a model.​

(b) Mathematicians prove or disprove equations or formulas.​

(Note that “model” is either the “EXPLANATORY model” or the “PREDICTIVE model” must be included in a “scientific theory” or a “hypothesis”.)

The equations or formulas or constants are logical models, known as “proof” or “mathematical proof”. Proofs are usually expressed as equations, formulas, constants/metrics or variables.

So, in science, proofs (equations) are themselves “models”, often found as parts of explanatory or predictive models, hence like point (a), the mathematical models needed to be tested too.

So in point b, mathematicians “prove” or “disprove” equations, they are not talking about evidence. The words “prove” or “proving” are often done by solving the equation through manipulating the equations. For examples, here are some of the ways you might solve an equation:

1. Simplifying a large complex equation
2. Breaking a larger equation into multiple smaller and more manageable equations
3. Or reversing the above process, by combining multiple equations into a single equation (eg the equation for the Theory Of Everything)
4. Solving an equation by finding the missing variable or missing constant/metric (eg Alexander Friedmann introduced the metric to Einstein’s field equations, to get the precise solution for the expanding universe model; this metric is now known as “FLRW metric”)
5. etc

The above are just some of methods used to prove or disprove an equation. That’s what mathematicians and theoretical physicists mean by “prove” or “proving”.

Do you remember doing mathematics in high school and in college or university? Whenever you tried to solve mathematical problems, you are attempting to prove them.

For examples, algebra and calculus. Whenever you try to differentiate or integrate the equations, you are proving. Whenever you use linear equations or quadratic equation, vectors or matrices, and whenever you plot graphs, you are attempting to prove them.

To reiterate my earlier point, proofs are logical or mathematical models, often expressed as mathematical equations.

To give you some examples to demonstrate the differences between proofs and evidence.

The equation in Ohm’s law...

I = V / R​

...this equation is proof, not evidence.

The evidence would be the actual circuitry on a circuit board (electrical components, like resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc), as well the power supply.

Evidence would also be all the measurements taken, for instances multimeter or oscilloscope, to measure electrical current (I), the voltage (V) and the resistor’s resistance (R).

Do you see the differences? Do you understand this example?

 

[muhammad_isa]

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..
.

There would be no need to ask for any support, if you knew it to be incorrect. You would jump on it.

..so it basically remains that you can't show that there is no reason for human life other than ToE.

 

[ratiocinator]

..so it basically remains that you can't show that there is no reason for human life other than ToE.

Argument from ignorance again. All the actual evidence we have suggests that we are the product of evolution. There is no evidence for anything else or any other purpose. It's not impossible that there is, but it's not impossible that there's and invisible dragon in my local park, either.

 

[muhammad_isa]

All the actual evidence we have suggests that we are the product of evolution. There is no evidence for anything else..

No empirical evidence, no.
However, that is not the only kind of evidence that exists.

We all need to decide for ourselves whether we find it credible that life has evolved without direction, other than that due to evolutionary process.

 

[ratiocinator]

No empirical evidence, no.
However, that is not the only kind of evidence that exists.

What else are you suggesting?

We all need to decide for ourselves whether we find it credible that life has evolved without direction, other than that due to evolutionary process.

Not if you're interested in what is actually true, rather than what you'd like to be true.

 

[metis]

We all need to decide for ourselves whether we find it credible that life has evolved without direction, other than that due to evolutionary process.

The ToE does not negate either possibility, and a great many theists do fully accept the ToE.

 

[night912]

Whenever I am insulted as if others think they're so much "smarter" than I am, or better educated in the way of evolultion, I find it amusing. So -- have a good night as you move along.

Hey, different people find different things to be amusing. Case in point, I find it amusing that for years up to even now, you still believe that your arguments and/or objections to the Theory of Evolution proves that the theory is wrong. It's also amusing that the argument that you used frequently, "there's no evidence of a kind evolving into a different kind, like a cat evolving into a dog or giving birth to a dog," or any other various forms of that argument, is actually in support of the ToE. In fact, if something like that was to occur, it would be sufficient evidence to prove that the theory is false. That alone is sufficient evidence to conclude that you're ignorant of the Theory of Evolution.

FYI:
Just because you were insulted, it doesn't mean that the statement wasn't true. Someone can both insult you and make a true statement at the same time; e.g., someone making the statement, "You're ignorant of the Theory of Evolution." That statement can be insulting to you, but it's still be true nonetheless. It can also not be an insult and still be true as well.

 

[night912]

It doesn't really matter to me HOW G-d created human beings.
I am happy with the fact that He created them.
..and ToE can't disprove that.

Hahaha. That was a funny joke you just made. You decided to take the dishonest approach so you should at least try to be more convincing than that.

Yes, it's so obvious that it doesn't matter to you how god created human beings, that's why you refuse to accept the Theory of Evolution despite the numerous amount of evidence supporting it.

And the ToE is not an attempt to disprove that god created humans. Both can still be true if god created humans and evolution through the mechanism of natural selection.

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

ToE CAN prove why humans have evolved in the way they have. The reason is because of natural selection, which caused humans to evolve their brain making them suitable for their survival.

I am happy with the fact that He created them.

I'm sorry but what fact was it that you were so happy about?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..that's why you refuse to accept the Theory of Evolution despite the numerous amount of evidence supporting it..

I never said that I didn't accept the basic principle of the ToE.

ToE CAN prove why humans have evolved in the way they have. The reason is because of natural selection, which caused humans to evolve their brain making them suitable for their survival.

No it can't. That is an extension of the basic ToE, and is a belief which can't be proved.

Universal Darwinism refers to a variety of approaches that extend the theory of ToE beyond its original domain of biological evolution on Earth.

"You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

 

[night912]

I never said that I didn't accept the basic principle of the ToE.

Yea you did. Right here.

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

If you do accept the ToE, then you wouldn't have made that statement above because that's exactly what the theory does.

No it can't. That is an extension of the basic ToE, and is a belief which can't be proved.

There's no such thing as an extension of the basic ToE when it comes to the theory itself. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Universal Darwinism refers to a variety of approaches that extend the theory of ToE beyond its original domain of biological evolution on Earth.

That's not the ToE. The ToE only deal with biology, so I don't see why it's relevant.

"You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

Instead of using a strawman, how about you just address what I actually said. The ToE doesn't deal with social science so everything you just said here is irrelevant. The ToE only deal with biology. Science consists of a wide variety of different subjects and they cannot be applied interchangeably amongst each other.

Whatever you're talking about, it's the ToE.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's not the ToE. The ToE only deal with biology, so I don't see why it's relevant.

No .. you said:

"ToE CAN prove why humans have evolved in the way they have. The reason is because of natural selection, which caused humans to evolve their brain making them suitable for their survival."

and I quoted:

""You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

..so I don't accept your "proof".

 

[night912]

I said this:

That's not the ToE. The ToE only deal with biology, so I don't see why it's relevant.

And you responded with this:

No .. you said:

"ToE CAN prove why humans have evolved in the way they have. The reason is because of natural selection, which caused humans to evolve their brain making them suitable for their survival."

and I quoted:

""You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

..so I don't accept your "proof".

Quoting what we said doesn't address my point that the ToE only deals with biology. The evolutionary path of humans deals with biology. The evolutionary path of the human brain deals with biology. The two points in your strawman has nothing to do with biology.

..so I don't accept your "proof".

Which would be......?

Apparently, from your responses, you don't understand what a scientific theory is and in this particular case, the Theory of Evolution. But if you disagree with my assessment, then please demonstrate it. Give an explanation of your understanding of what a scientific theory is, along with a quick summary of your understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[muhammad_isa]

which caused humans to evolve their brain making them suitable for their survival.

Can you explain?
What do you mean by "suitable for their survival"?
Haven't all creatures with brains survived?

 

[ratiocinator]

Haven't all creatures with brains survived?

No, none of them do as individuals, and many species which had brains have gone extinct. Apparently you have no clue at all about the theory of evolution.

 

[night912]

Can you explain?
What do you mean by "suitable for their survival"?
Haven't all creatures with brains survived?

Nope. Where are the dinosaurs? Unless if you don't think they had brains.

Present your understanding of the ToE first, because if you do understand the theory, then you would know what I mean by "suitable for their survival." An understanding of that theory is needed in order to have a better/easier understanding of what I meant. We need to take one step at a time.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Present your understanding of the ToE first, because if you do understand the theory, then you would know what I mean by "suitable for their survival."

No .. you're simply avoiding the issue.

"You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There would be no need to ask for any support, if you knew it to be incorrect. You would jump on it.

Huh?

..so it basically remains that you can't show that there is no reason for human life other than ToE.

And again with the shifting of the burden of proof.....


It's not my job to show anything when it comes to claims that YOU are making.
Meet your own burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No empirical evidence, no.
However, that is not the only kind of evidence that exists.

What other reliable and independently verifiable type of evidence do you suggest?

We all need to decide for ourselves whether we find it credible that life has evolved without direction, other than that due to evolutionary process.

Sorry, but actual history is a matter of evidence - not a matter of opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said that I didn't accept the basic principle of the ToE.
No it can't. That is an extension of the basic ToE, and is a belief which can't be proved.

Natural selection factually occurs and demonstrably is what determines the direction of a species' evolution.

Universal Darwinism refers to a variety of approaches that extend the theory of ToE beyond its original domain of biological evolution on Earth.

Non idea what you are referring to, but we are only talking about biological evolution.

"You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

If you think that the work of evolutionary biologists consists of just sitting in a room sucking stories out of their thumb, then I think you are confusing them with "philosophers" or "theologians".

But I get it.... science deniers can only argue against science by misrepresenting it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

No, that's right.
What do we know, exactly?
Can we be sure that LUCA is actual truth .. or is it an unprovable theory?