Does evolution have a purpose?

[muhammad_isa]

Then why insist on dismissing the facts of genetics?

I don't.
It's just that I don't come to conclusions about what happened billions of years ago.
You don't categorically know, and I don't know.

So stop your nonsense

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't.
It's just that I don't come to conclusions about what happened billions of years ago.

You contradicted yourself.

You don't categorically know, and I don't know.

We have comprehensive evidence that means we do know (i.e. there is more than enough evidence to say that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt).

 

[muhammad_isa]

We have comprehensive evidence that means we do know (i.e. there is more than enough evidence to say that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt).

If that's what you wish to think..

I have a totally different outlook to you.
Why is it so important to you what happened billions of years ago, in any case?

I'm not impressed at all, with what might or might not have happened then.
Is it just curiousity or what?

 

[ratiocinator]

If that's what you wish to think..

It's got nothing to do with what I (or anybody else) wish to think. This is the conclusion of those people who are experts in the field and who study these things have reached, based on multiple different line of evidence.

I have a totally different outlook to you.
Why is it so important to you what happened billions of years ago, in any case?

It seems to be important enough to you to try and pretend that the evidence isn't there. And what I find important is that people try to promulgate anti-science nonsense based on nothing but religious convictions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..what I find important is that people try to promulgate anti-science nonsense based on nothing but religious convictions.

Ah .. I see.
From my standpoint, it seems that both sides of this argument exaggerate their claims.

One side from atheists who wish to paint their picture, and on the other hand we have Bible literalists who paint theirs.

Getting back to the OP, if evolution served no purpose, then why does it operate in the way that it does?
I see that it serves a very important purpose. Life is underpinned by its mechanisms.

 

[ratiocinator]

From my standpoint, it seems that both sides of this argument exaggerate their claims.

Then you're just wrong. There is no doubt about the general picture outside of certain religious cults (most of whose members seem to be scientifically illiterate).

One side from atheists who wish to paint their picture, and on the other hand we have Bible literalists who paint theirs.

Why would atheists care? As I said, I care only because I think promoting ignorance and superstition over science is generally a bad idea. And, as has already been pointed out, most theists don't have any problem with the science and many of the scientists who work in the field are actually theists themselves.

This really isn't an atheists versus theist argument, it's science versus dogmatic superstition and ignorance.

Getting back to the OP, if evolution served no purpose, then why does it operate in the way that it does?

Because of the basic logical fact that heritable traits that aid survival and reproduction in the context of the environment of a population, tend to be reproduced more than those that don't do as well at aiding those things. It really isn't (at the basic level at least) all that complicated. It's practically a truism.

I see that it serves a very important purpose. Life is underpinned by its mechanisms.

You're assigning purpose retrospectively. In a very real why, evolution is the origin of purpose. There was no purpose until evolution got going. If a trait aids survival and reproduction, then it tends to spread through the population simply because it does so. However, it aids survival and reproduction exactly because it is doing something that helps towards those 'goals'. i.e. it has a purpose. You don't need a mind to conceive of that purpose because it will spread through the population regardless, exactly because it is useful in some way. This is what the philosopher Daniel Dennett calls 'free floating rationales'. Retrospectively, an intelligent mind can look at the trait and say that it aided survival because it severed specific purpose (better camouflage to protect from predators, better eyesight to catch prey, or whatever).

 

[muhammad_isa]

You're assigning purpose retrospectively. In a very real why, evolution is the origin of purpose. There was no purpose until evolution got going..

..and your purpose is to show how that is a "fact" ?
..really, it just makes me laugh

Retrospectively, an intelligent mind can look at the trait and say that it aided survival because it severed specific purpose (better camouflage to protect from predators, better eyesight to catch prey, or whatever).

..and where did intelligent minds come from?
Did they evolve from non-intelligent minds?

 

[ratiocinator]

..and your purpose is to show how that is a "fact" ?

I explained it to you. You're welcome to ask question is you don't understand.

..really, it just makes me laugh

For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

..and where did intelligent minds come from?
Did they evolve from non-intelligent minds?

Yes. Intelligent minds are the result of brains having certain abilities. Obviously they did evolve from much simpler ones with fewer abilities.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't.

You do. And I've explained several times now how you do.
Ignoring the explanations won't make them go away.

It's just that I don't come to conclusions about what happened billions of years ago.

The example I gave you speaks to a species split only 7 million years ago.
In fact, EVERY example I gave you doesn't go further back then some 350 million years.

Not that it matters though. In my 15-sentence explanation that you refuse to address, I specifically stated also that we can determine common ancestry between 2 individuals by comparing DNA, regardless of who that common ancestor was or when and where it lived.

The ancestor could be from the previous generation just 30 years ago or it could be an ancient ancestor going back 300 million years.

The exact same underlying principles apply.
Your reluctance to address these principles directly, speaks volumes.

You don't categorically know, and I don't know.

YOU don't know. And it seems to be by choice. Willful ignorance.

Geneticists do know. And I suspect that you know that they know.
You just can't bring yourself to be intellectually honest about it.

Because let's be honest here.... the underlying principles that make it possible for us to determine kinship and bloodlines by comparing DNA... it's not exactly rocket science.

It's instead really simple. I have a mutation and I pass it on the off spring.
Nobody else except my off spring has said mutation.

If we analyze a random set of anonymous DNA samples which also includes DNA samples of my off spring, it would be trivial to determine which DNA belongs to my offspring. All you'ld have to do is select those DNA samples that have said mutation.

Shared DNA markers = shared ancestors in which those markers originated.

It's really simple.

It's why we share more ERV's with chimps then with any other animal. Because the ERV's that originated in the bloodline after the ancestor split from other cousin species, are only present in the off spring of said ancestor, and not in the off spring of parallel branches.

But I'm guessing you will once again ignore these explanations and instead quote the most irrelevant bit of this post and then ramble on about that. If you reply at all, that is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have a totally different outlook to you.

Yes. A religious outlook that proudly flies in the face of independently verifiable evidence and facts.

Why is it so important to you what happened billions of years ago, in any case?

There is, off course, a great many reasons why understanding our origin as a species, our biological makeup and the processes of biology is important and helpful.
But instead of making a long post with explanations of these various points that you won't be reading anyway, I'll just say this - which by itself is already enough imo:

Truth and knowledge is its own reward.

I'm not impressed at all, with what might or might not have happened then.

Then why are you bothering to try and argue with the facts?
Why then are you so resisting to learn?

Is it just curiousity or what?

That's certainly part of it. Not that it matters though.
What difference does it make what the motivation is to learn about biology?
No matter the motivation, it won't change the facts of biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah .. I see.
From my standpoint, it seems that both sides of this argument exaggerate their claims.

One side from atheists who wish to paint their picture,

I have already informed you on several occasions that "atheism" has nothing to do with this.
Plenty of geneticists and evolutionary biologists are theists.

Why do you continue to repeat this already exposed falsehood?

Getting back to the OP, if evolution served no purpose, then why does it operate in the way that it does?

That's not a sensible question.
You assume that whenever anything happens or operates in any way that there MUST be a purpose for it. To the point that if it doesn't have some cosmic purpose, that it then requires some type of "special" explanation for why it occurs anyway.

This is off course false.

The reason why evolution operates the way it does is quite simply because it is inevitable.

When you have systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition with peers over limited resources, then the gradual evolution of those systems is inevitable.

Well... that, or extinction.

I see that it serves a very important purpose. Life is underpinned by its mechanisms.

Everything is underpinned by its mechanisms. Not just life.
And that doesn't imply "purpose".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes. A religious outlook

Indeed, I do believe in G-d. I am also interested in biology.
..not so keen on discussing "facts" of millions or billions of years ago.
I don't find it relevant to my life.
I don't have any problem with theorising and discussing possibilities, but when people like you come along and bulldoze "your facts" in my face .. I simply turn off. I don't want to know!

Are you interested what is going to happen to you in 100 years?
No .. you consider that to be fiction, of course

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Indeed, I do believe in G-d. I am also interested in biology.
..not so keen on discussing "facts" of millions or billions of years ago.

Determining common ancestry between 2 individuals by DNA, is a present day fact.

I don't find it relevant to my life.

Not to mention that it doesn't seem to be fitting with your religious faith based worldview.

I don't have any problem with theorising and discussing possibilities, but when people like you come along and bulldoze "your facts" in my face .. I simply turn off. I don't want to know!

They are not "my" facts. They are simply facts of genetics.
You can ignore them or deny them if you want.
They remain the facts.

You ask what use it is to know these facts.
Let me turn that around: what use is it to deny facts? About anything?

There's a difference between simply not being interested in the subject, and outright denying it.

Are you interested what is going to happen to you in 100 years?

I'll be a bunch of ashes.

No .. you consider that to be fiction, of course

No. 100 years from now I would be 141 years old. I don't expect to be alive then.
And as I will be cremated, I will be a bunch of scattered ashes.

And once again, we drift of into total irrelevancy.


ps: if you are so unintrested in discussing biological evolution, then what are you doing in a thread about evolution in a subforum dedicated to evolution?

 

[muhammad_isa]

ps: if you are so unintrested in discussing biological evolution, then what are you doing in a thread about evolution in a subforum dedicated to evolution?

Well, I could ask you a similar question? Why are you on a site that discusses religion?
It doesn't require an answer.

G-d is the Evolver from Naught. There would be no universe without G-d. All the natural laws, including how life evolves, are deliberate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I could ask you a similar question? Why are you on a site that discusses religion?

Because I like discussing religions and beliefs in general.
I am interested in it.

I'm not running around in these discussion endlessly trolling people while saying that "i don't really care"

It doesn't require an answer.

Well, I answered anyway. Unlike you, I actually DO answer questions being put to me and I DO respond to all points being raised. You should try it sometime. You might learn something.

G-d is the Evolver from Naught. There would be no universe without G-d. All the natural laws, including how life evolves, are deliberate.

Evidence required for this statement.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because I like discussing religions and beliefs in general.
I am interested in it.
...
[ G-d is the Evolver from naught ]
Evidence required for this statement.

Rather contradictory, eh, what??
Are you interested in religious belief or not?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes .. it's all very interesting, but not as interesting as religious knowledge
Not to me.
The knowledge of the universe and its history is an academic discipline that can have many applications.
..yet if it turns people away from G-d, then it is also problematic.
There is definitely something wrong there

You can believe everything that you read. I do not.
It is not always easy to differentiate between what is a proven fact, and what is conjecture.
It just goes to show, that specialisation, and the priviliges it brings in society, can be a difficult test for us.
It is easy to be led astray.

For those people who dismiss theism, believing that mankind somehow knows so much more than their ancestors, is an arrogant claim.
Academic knowledge can be of benefit to us, and also a curse, as is all too apparent in today's world.
It is as if we are choking on our own vomit.

It's not an arrogant claim at all. It's a simple fact that we know more than our ancestors did. Thank you science!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Rather contradictory, eh, what??

Why is that contradictory?

Are you interested in religious belief or not?

You can lose the "religious" bit.
I'm interested in beliefs, full stop. The psychological side of it, to be exact.
Be it religious belief or otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not an arrogant claim at all. It's a simple fact that we know more than our ancestors did. Thank you science!

What you are saying is that we have more scientific knowledge.
That is true.
..but are our souls somehow safer?
Where are we headed?
Are you one of these people who think that we can avert climate-change and war?
Are you one of these people who say that there is nothing after death, while enjoying the fruits of worldly knowledge?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that's what you wish to think..

I have a totally different outlook to you.
Why is it so important to you what happened billions of years ago, in any case?

I'm not impressed at all, with what might or might not have happened then.
Is it just curiousity or what?

Yes we can see your outlook: Ignore all evidence that contradicts your a priori beliefs.