Does evolution have a purpose?

[Truthseeker]

As regards the self, perhaps we should define our terms here. For me, there is the lower self, the ego, and also a higher self. We need always to guard against the ego, that false self which tells us we are separate, alone, that we are right to be afraid, that we will never be satisfied.

Yes, there is a lower animalistic self. and a higher spiritual self.

As for the higher self, I see it as something like this description from verse 8 of the Isha Upanishad;

The Self is everywhere. Bright is the Self,
Indivisible, untouched by sin, wise,
Immanent and transcendent. He it is
Who holds the cosmos together.

I dissent a little. We have all of the attributes of that Entity, but we are not part of that Entity. That Entity transcends all things, including us. He transcends us, yet we in the image of Him.

Unless we learn, collectively and individually, to elevate our consciousness from the false, egotistical mind to the enlightened, exalted mind, I don’t see much of a future for our species; we need to make that evolutionary leap forward and we need to make it soon.

Yes.

 

[Valjean]

,
Mutation, the means to natural selection, I assume, is a random process that drives evolution. If the mutation provides an advantage to a life form to survive an environment, evolution takes place.

Yes, mutation is a mechanism of evolution; one that provides an assortment of variations for the other mechanisms to work with.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I refer you to #2. Just as there is absolutely zero evidence that the process of evaporation is being initiated and sustained by a conscious entity - making the suggestion 'absurd' to use your own word - there is also absolutely zero evidence that the process of evolution is being initiated and sustained by a conscious entity, I therefor conclude that such a proposition is equally as absurd.

Is there a reason that you find the prospect of one natural process being initiated and sustained by a conscious entity to be absurd, while accepting that another natural process might somehow be initiated and sustained by a conscious entity?

Again you miss the distinction between a process being itself a conscious entity - an absurd suggestion, we agree - and a process being initiated and sustained by a conscious entity. If the universe itself is initiated and sustained by a conscious entity, then it follows that every phenomena occurring within that universe is, as it were, a manifestation of that entity.

Anyway, I think I understand your position now, we got there in the end. You made the confident assertion that evolution couldn’t possibly have a purpose, based on what you see as zero evidence for it having one.

Fair enough if, having given the matter some thought, and asked as many questions as your username suggests you are wont to do, that is the conclusion you have drawn. Though in such an instance, I would have hoped for a better constructed refutation of divine purpose than a simple “it’s absurd”. Perhaps you might explain why it’s absurd to consider, as so many great minds have, that perhaps a great plan underlies all, and that the universe itself may be the expression of a universal creative intelligence.

 

[Valjean]

Not so accidental.

Consider what happened when the Chicxulub impact occurred. Many species were decreased in number. This mean a smaller breeding pool (close cousins breeding). This made more mutations. It is observed in the fossil record that after the impact, many species died, and many new species were created.

Thus, there are two factors at work in species changing. One is natural selection, and the other is any factor that limits a population will create more mutations.

Good point. Environmental stability, in which ecological niches are fully exploited by well adapted forms, slows evolution. Environmental change, or extirpation of existing species, opens new opportunities, and an adaptive, 'niche rush' ensues.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Again you miss the distinction between a process being itself a conscious entity - an absurd suggestion, we agree - and a process being initiated and sustained by a conscious entity. If the universe itself is initiated and sustained by a conscious entity, then it follows that every phenomena occurring within that universe is, as it were, a manifestation of that entity.

Anyway, I think I understand your position now, we got there in the end. You made the confident assertion that the evolution couldn’t possibly have a purpose, based on what you see as zero evidence for it having one.

Fair enough if, having given the matter some thought, and asked as many questions as your username suggests you are wont to do, that is the conclusion you have drawn. Though in such an instance, I would have hoped for a better constructed refutation of divine purpose than a simple “it’s absurd”. Perhaps you might explain why it’s absurd, to consider as so many great minds have, that perhaps a great plan underlies all, and that the universe itself may be the expression of a universal creative intelligence.

It's the only logical conclusion a skeptical mind can come to. Any claim may well be possible, but it's absurd to accept it as true or even likely unless there's some verifiable evidence to back up the claim. It's possible that little green men from Mars are posing as human beings here on earth, but it would be absurd to accept it as true or likely until there's some actual evidence that supports the claim. It's also possible that there is actually no such thing as natural processes like evolution and evaporation and that absolutely everything is initiated and controlled by some undetectable conscious entity, but it would be absurd to accept such a claim as true or even likely with zero evidence to back it up.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's the only logical conclusion a skeptical mind can come to. Any claim may well be possible, but it's absurd to accept it as true or even likely unless there's some verifiable evidence to back up the claim. It's possible that little green men from Mars are posing as human beings here on earth, but it would be absurd to accept it as true or likely until there's some actual evidence that supports the claim. It's also possible that there is actually no such thing as natural processes like evolution and evaporation and that absolutely everything is initiated and controlled by some undetectable conscious entity, but it would be absurd to accept such a claim as true or even likely with zero evidence to back it up.

We know that conditions on Mars are incapable of supporting life, and that has been the case for millions if not billions of years.
We know that NASA is compiling a list of potentially habitable exoplanets in neighbouring galaxies, but the nearest of these is light years away.
We can therefore conclude, that to reject outright the suggestion of little green men from Mars or any other distant planet living and walking among us, is evidence of logic and reason being put to good use.

Conversely, the world’s libraries are full of great philosophical, theological and poetic literature recording the history of human thought on the subject of divine purpose.
Many, if not most of the great minds of history, including Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, Niels Bohr, Stephen Hawking, have at least given consideration to the role a God of sorts may have played in the unfolding story of our infinitely complex yet apparently coherent universe.
We can therefore conclude that to dismiss out of hand even the possibility that the universe and everything in it may serve the mysterious purpose of a timeless entity, is the working of a wilfully closed mind.

Personally, I find the conviction that our universe is a result solely of random interactions between directionless, self created, energy and matter, to be far more absurd than the ideas in much of the religious and spiritual literature I referred to earlier. Physicists and mathematicians themselves tell us that the great drama of nature is unfolding according to precise, intricate, and we may say breathtakingly beautiful, laws and patterns.

 

[Valjean]

No, evolution has no purpose. It's just a natural process, but clearly something else is going on that involves intentionality. Humans are a higher order of function that has internal purposes to its body plans.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "higher order function." Physically, we're perfectly ordinary animals. Intellectually we are different from other mammals, in quantity, at least, but why this particular feature should point to some magical manipulation by an intentional, external consciousness, I don't understand.

It seems pretty black-or-white to me. Unconscious physics or chemistry underlies all the phenomena and change we see in the world. It explains everything we've ever investigated.

It doesn't take the finger of God to prevent a rock floating off into space, or make water freeze in Winter, so why the extraordinary claim that human form or function is any different? Are we just assuaging our insecurity with cosmic purpose or a paternal spirit looking out for us? Are we really the "paragon of animals?"

Intentionality would presuppose a suspension and alteration of the normal laws of physics, ie: magic.
Intentionality is an appeal to magic. It's an extraordinary claim inasmuch as it's both an entirely unobserved, and entirely unnecessary.

Nothing should function at all without intentionality. All life would be is viruses and gibberish without intentionality.

Why? Are you trying to shoehorn facts into a preconceived fantasy narrative?

 

[QuestioningMind]

We know that conditions on Mars are incapable of supporting life, and that has been the case for millions if not billions of years.
We know that NASA is compiling a list of potentially habitable exoplanets in neighbouring galaxies, but the nearest of these is light years away.
We can therefore conclude, that to reject outright the suggestion of little green men from Mars or any other distant planet living and walking among us, is evidence of logic and reason being put to good use.

Conversely, the world’s libraries are full of great philosophical, theological and poetic literature recording the history of human thought on the subject of divine purpose.
Many, if not most of the great minds of history, including Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, Niels Bohr, Stephen Hawking, have at least given consideration to the role a God of sorts may have played in the unfolding story of our infinitely complex yet apparently coherent universe.
We can therefore conclude that to dismiss out of hand even the possibility that the universe and everything in it may serve the mysterious purpose of a timeless entity, is the working of a wilfully closed mind.

Personally, I find the conviction that our universe is a result solely of random interactions between directionless, self created, energy and matter, to be far more absurd than the ideas in much of the religious and spiritual literature I referred to earlier. Physicists and mathematicians themselves tell us that the great drama of nature is unfolding according to precise, intricate, and we may say breathtakingly beautiful, laws and patterns.

Sorry, I suppose I should have said little green men from a distant solar system that have mastered FTL travel are posing as humans here on Earth. Now that claim and the claim of an all controlling entity are on equal footing and should be given equal consideration as to their truth or likelihood. .

The fact that people have speculated about the possibility of some sort of Devine intervention since almost forever is completely irrelevant to the reality that even after all of this endless speculation there still isn't a shred of verifiable evidence that this Devine being exists. And the fact that the universe can be seen as wonderous and beautiful or that it follows precise laws and patterns is hardly an indication of some Devine being.

As for our universe being the result of random interactions between self-created energy, I certainly don't adhere to any such belief nor does any current scientific model. Who do you know that holds such a conviction?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Inevitable by what criteria?

By the same type of criteria that makes it inevitable that if you drop your keys, they'll fall to the ground instead of shooting into space.

Which variables determine inevitability, and to what extent?

I already told you.

When you have systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition with peers over limited resources, then the evolutionary process (change of those species over time) is inevitable.

Because the variations will make some better then others in this competition. And those are more likely to produce a new generation. It's literally inevitable.

Go ahead, try and build a computer simulation where you have systems that reproduce with variation and compete with peers over limited resources and let it run for 1000 generations. EVERY SINGLE TIME generation 1000 will be different from generation 1.

Now add some additional factors, like having the environment (and thus the availability of the limited resources) undergo gradual random changes as well (to simulate volcano's, asteroid impacts, climate change, what-have-you) and the result will be even more change in generation 1000 as compared to generation 1.

In such scenario's, evolutionary change over time is inevitable.

As inevitable as keys falling to earth instead of shooting into space.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You think logic and reason are the fundamental principles that drive the process of evolution?

That is not at all what he said.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The fact that people have speculated about the possibility of some sort of Devine intervention since almost forever is completely irrelevant to the reality that even after all of this endless speculation there still isn't a shred of verifiable evidence that this Devine being exists. And the fact that the universe can be seen as wonderous and beautiful or that it follows precise laws and patterns is hardly an indication of some Devine being.

As for our universe being the result of random interactions between self-created energy, I certainly don't adhere to any such belief nor does any current scientific model. Who do you know that holds such a conviction?

In the absence of any creator, we must surely assume that the universe and all the matter and energy therein is self created.

If the events which characterise the universe and the material from which it is formed are not random, we must assume that they are determined.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is not at all what he said.

He can talk for himself; indeed he already did, thanks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s the degree of inevitability I was querying

Consider the process of walking as an analogy.
1 step = 1 generation.

After taking 1 step, you are pretty much in the exact same place as before.

Taking thousands of steps, you will inevitably cover a great distance

Evolution is no different. Every new generation is slightly different from the previous one (variation).
After 1 generation, the population is pretty much the exact same as the previous one.
After thousands of generations, it will inevitably cover much bigger change.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In the absence of any creator, we must surely assume that the universe and all the matter and energy therein is self created.

If the events which characterise the universe and the material from which it is formed are not random, we must assume that they are determined.

We certainly do not. We can just as easily assume that all of the matter and energy that is contained in our universe has always existed, simply in a different form prior to the big bang. And though it's true that all of the events that occurred after the big bang were determined by what we have labeled the laws of physics, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was some conscious entity making that determination.

 

[RestlessSoul]

By the same type of criteria that makes it inevitable that if you drop your keys, they'll fall to the ground instead of shooting into space.



I already told you.

When you have systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition with peers over limited resources, then the evolutionary process (change of those species over time) is inevitable.

Because the variations will make some better then others in this competition. And those are more likely to produce a new generation. It's literally inevitable.

Go ahead, try and build a computer simulation where you have systems that reproduce with variation and compete with peers over limited resources and let it run for 1000 generations. EVERY SINGLE TIME generation 1000 will be different from generation 1.

Now add some additional factors, like having the environment (and thus the availability of the limited resources) undergo gradual random changes as well (to simulate volcano's, asteroid impacts, climate change, what-have-you) and the result will be even more change in generation 1000 as compared to generation 1.

In such scenario's, evolutionary change over time is inevitable.

As inevitable as keys falling to earth instead of shooting into space.

Yes, I understand the fundamentals of evolution. And I understand that change is the only constant.
These assertions are not what I am questioning; my observation was about the nature and extent of inevitablity underpinning the evolution not only of species, but of all naturally occurring phenomena.
To what extent, in other words, is the universe deterministic?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

3) The emergence, function, and defining qualities of life and of consciousness, raise questions that have intrigued philosophers, scientists, artists, theologians and thinkers of all types for millennia. If you think you have the definitive answers to these questions, then please, let’s hear them.

These questions have been answered in the last 200 years. It's called Evolution Theory. Perhaps you've heard of it... A certain fellow named Darwin came up with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, in the sense that the conditions of the universe were created in order to create consciousness. At least so It appears to me.

That's what I call the teleological fallacy.

This is like the cat who's rubbing his neck against a sharp rock who says "clearly this rock was created so that I can scratch myself".

 

[RestlessSoul]

Consider the process of walking as an analogy.
1 step = 1 generation.

After taking 1 step, you are pretty much in the exact same place as before.

Taking thousands of steps, you will inevitably cover a great distance

Evolution is no different. Every new generation is slightly different from the previous one (variation).
After 1 generation, the population is pretty much the exact same as the previous one.
After thousands of generations, it will inevitably cover much bigger change.

No, you're still missing the point.
If you take many steps, you inevitably end up somewhere else. That's obvious, and not what I'm interested in considering.
My question is, if every step taken was an inevitable consequence of the conditions in which that step occurred (including the instincts, convictions, ideas and inclinations of the organism taking the step), then to what extent was the final destination inevitable?

 

[RestlessSoul]

These questions have been answered in the last 200 years. It's called Evolution Theory. Perhaps you've heard of it... A certain fellow named Darwin came up with it.

No, never heard of him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good point. Environmental stability, in which ecological niches are fully exploited by well adapted forms, slows evolution. Environmental change, or extirpation of existing species, opens new opportunities, and an adaptive, 'niche rush' ensues.

In genetic algorithms, we call that situation the "local optimum".
It means that species are so well adapted to their environment that there are no longer any clear, easy or even possible evolutionary paths towards further improvement. The result is natural selection favoring the status quo.

Any change to those species will either be detrimental, or it will make no difference.

Once the environment changes (this can mean MANY things... like even the emergence of a new viral strain), that can result in moving species out of their local optimum. The arms race of evolution is on again. And it will continue, until local optimums are reached again.


This is essentially the concept of punctuated equilibrium.