Does evolution have a purpose?

[TagliatelliMonster]

..yes, you keep saying

No, it's not me saying this.
It's how evolution works. That is the model of evolution. That is how it works.
It's a gradual process of accumulation of micro-changes over generations.

So a brainless creature is not going to give birth to a creature with a brain.
Just like a latin speaking mother is not going to raise a spanish speaking child.

Spanish gradually evolved from latin, through accumulation of micro change over generations.
Every person ever raised in that population, spoke the same language as its parents and peers.
And yet, Latin evolved into spanish, french, portuguese and italian.

This is how it works when things gradually change over time.

.. the final result is through a series of "lucky poker hands".

I never used the word "lucky". That's entirely on you.
I don't qualify it as "lucky", because that is hindsight subjective nonsense. Irrelevant to the actual process.

i.e. it just happened because it could.

Just like how latin turned into spanish, french, italian, etc.

Obviously the actual "how" question is a bit more elaborate, as detailed in evolution theory. Natural selection, genetic drift, yada yada.

But I'm assuming that with your "because" you are referring to a "why" question in the sense of "purpose".
In that sense, yes, it simply happens because it could. Actually "would" is an even better word.

Reason is that biological evolution is inevitable considering the properties of life.

Whenever you have systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition with peers over limited resources... then evolution is inevitable.

Create any model, any system, real or simulated, with such properties and the systems in it WILL evolve. Inevitably. Add to that an ever-changing environment (which dictates and/or influences selection pressures) and it's even more so inevitable.

Such systems undergoing evolution is just as inevitable as when you release a thing with mass from your hand, it will be falling to earth instead of shooting into space.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I say, if you can't see why a person might think that a universe that contains awareness and reason has an author, then there is really nothing more to say.

Translation: I got nothing, it's just my religious belief and I don't care about evidence, I'll just hold this belief and that's the end of it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Whereas you are clinched to a religious dogma which by religious doctrine is "forbidden" to be changed by evidence. That's really the problem here.

Don't be ridiculous! I can believe anything I like. I'm not being coerced to believe anything in particular .. are you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, not in my opinion we don't.
It's like saying that a computer can evolve from its constituent non-intelligent parts without an author.
It is obvious to me that it can't.

Shame that it still isn't obvious to you how that is a false analogy.

Computers don't reproduce with variation.
They are not in competition with peers over limited resources.
They are not self-sufficient.

In other words, they literally miss EVERY SINGLE INGREDIENT required for an evolutionary process to take place. So why would you think this is a remotely sensible analogy? It isn't.

It's like trying to argue against gravity by pointing at hammers floating in the international spacestation.
It's ridiculous.

I accept that natural selection influenced the evolution of language and other human attributes; but given the enormous gap between human cognitive capacities and those of other animals

That gap is actually a LOT smaller then you like to believe that it is.
In fact, most cognitive faculties that people like you like to believe are "uniquely human" in truth really aren't at all. Many are unique to primates. Others are unique to mammals. Etc.

And obviously there are traits that are uniquely human. EVERY species has traits that are unique to them. Those traits are in fact what distinguishes them as a separate species.

If a species would have no unique features, then it wouldn't be its own distinct species....

If anything, evolutionary theory can explain too much. "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."
-Noam Chomsky-

Perhaps you should be trying to quote biologists when discussing biology, instead of a "philosopher" / linguist / political activist.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, not in my opinion we don't.

Your unsupported opinions are irrelevant (as are mine), what matters is evidence.

It's like saying that a computer can evolve from its constituent non-intelligent parts without an author.

No, it's nothing like that at all. Computers don't reproduce with inherited characteristics and variation and are not subject to natural selection or any other evolutionary mechanisms.

It is obvious to me that it can't.

Again: your unsupported opinions are irrelevant (as are mine), what matters is evidence.

I have already explained how psychological evolutionary theory is flawed.

Okay, where?

If anything, evolutionary theory can explain too much. "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."

Actually both behaviours are present in our closest evolutionary cousins. We are social mammals that tend to cooperate within groups and fight with other groups.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't be ridiculous! I can believe anything I like. I'm not being coerced to believe anything in particular ..

That seems to be contradicting to what you said earlier....
When I asked you if your objection to the science of evolution was based on your religious beliefs, and you basically said "yes".

are you?

Yes, actually.
I'm "coerced" to believe (or rather "accept") that which is reasonably demonstrated by evidence.
So when I believe X and evidence shows up that says Y, then I'm coerced to change my mind.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, it could.
My rational mind tells me it is not reasonable that the universe has no author.
If your rational mind comes to some other conclusion, then there is nothing else to say, really.

How did you come to that conclusion? What's the evidence?

 

[SkepticThinker]

..because whatever evidence you come up with cannot categorically prove exactly how mankind evolved.
We only know that they did, and not exactly how.

You can hypothesise what might have happened millions of years ago .. and that's fine.

You accuse me of not being interested in scientific evidence.
That's poppycock. I am very much interested.

Being interested, and agreeing with conclusions is two different things.

Specifically, I do not agree that mankind is solely the product of biological evolutionary process.

What evidence do you have for the belief that "mankind is[n't] solely the produce of biological evolutionary process?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

..yes, you keep saying .. the final result is through a series of "lucky poker hands".
i.e. it just happened because it could.

And what's wrong with that, exactly?

 

[muhammad_isa]

That seems to be contradicting to what you said earlier....
When I asked you if your objection to the science of evolution was based on your religious beliefs, and you basically said "yes".

What you don't seem to understand, is that some of us believe what we believe for reasons other than "because that is what I was taught to believe"

I find that the world is full of people that believe "what they are taught to believe", whether theist or atheist.
Some people are either incapable of making their own conclusions .. or simply don't wish to. They are content with following others without using their own powers of reasoning.

Yes, actually.
I'm "coerced" to believe (or rather "accept") that which is reasonably demonstrated by evidence.
So when I believe X and evidence shows up that says Y, then I'm coerced to change my mind.

Ah, but you suggested that I am forced to believe a particular religious doctrine .. which I'm not.
"There is no compulsion in religion" means that we are not forced to accept something without reason.

..such as "G-d is one", or "G-d is a trinity", for example.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And what's wrong with that, exactly?

Are you looking for a debate about an argument from incredulity fallacy?

I think you are.
*Yawn* Clearly you don't find the universe incredible. I do.

Incredible things don't come about by themselves, in my observations.
One has to ask why things are the way that they are.
Your answer seems to be different from mine.
You seem to find the universe to be a mundane affair, that is produced by an emotionless process that just happens to be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you looking for a debate about an argument from incredulity fallacy?

I think you are.
*Yawn* Clearly you don't find the universe incredible. I do.

Incredible things don't come about by themselves, in my observations.
One has to ask why things are the way that they are.
Your answer seems to be different from mine.
You seem to find the universe to be a mundane affair, that is produced by an emotionless process that just happens to be.

I'm asking you a question. At least you realize that you're making a fallacious argument though?

I do actually find the universe pretty amazing. But I don't see any reason to believe that it must have a creator, just because I find it really cool. That wouldn't make sense as there is no demonstrable connection there. Stuff happens "because it can" all the time. Rocks form, mountains are formed and eroded, volcanoes erupt, grass grows, etc. all without any divine intervention required. Why do you think divine intervention is required?

Do you think the God you worship is incredible in some way? If you do, and if we follow your line of logic, then that God also required a creator, right?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you think the God you worship is incredible in some way? If you do, and if we follow your line of logic, then that God also required a creator, right?

Yes, G-d is Absolute [or incredible].

G-d is the "spiritual force" behind all that we see. He does not require a creator, because the act of creation implies a beginning.
My human perception can imagine an infinite entity, but not totally grasp it.
That doesn't trouble me, because I have faith in my convictions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, G-d is Absolute [or incredible].

G-d is the "spiritual force" behind all that we see. He does not require a creator, because the act of creation implies a beginning.
My human perception can imagine an infinite entity, but not totally grasp it.
That doesn't trouble me, because I have faith in my convictions.

Special pleading. "My God doesn't have to follow the rules of logic I just applied to something else." Hilariously silly.

Do you have any arguments that aren't logical fallacies?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Special pleading. "My God doesn't have to follow the rules of logic I just applied to something else." Hilariously silly.

Of course it isn't.
Is the physical universe an abstract concept? No.
Does the universe contain things that possess intelligence and awareness? Yes, and it is an abstract concept.

The concept is still valid whether you are alive or dead.
i.e. it is an eternal concept

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course it isn't.
Is the physical universe an abstract concept? No.
Does the universe contain things that possess intelligence and awareness? Yes, and it is an abstract concept.

The concept is still valid whether you are alive or dead.

None of this has anything to do with the fallacious argument you are trying to make.

 

[muhammad_isa]

None of this has anything to do with the fallacious argument you are trying to make.

It is not a fallacious argument.
You are saying that an abstract concept has the same characteristics as a physical one.
i.e. if the universe[physical] needs an author, then so does G-d[abstract]

It's simply incorrect.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not a fallacious argument.
You are saying that an abstract concept has the same characteristics as a physical one.
i.e. if the universe[physical] needs an author, then so does G-d[abstract]

It's simply incorrect

It is a fallacious argument for the reason I explained.
You applied logic to one situation, but then discarded it when it came to the thing you believe in and need to exist. That's not rational.
Sorry but special pleading is a logical fallacy, regardless of whether you want to play around with words or not.
Don't forget, we're using your own logic to its rational conclusion here.
Your "God is an abstract thought" argument doesn't work either because you're claiming that this God created the physical universe and everything in it.

Your arguments are fallacious, irrational and unconvincing. Sorry.
Maybe try something else.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your "God is an abstract thought" argument doesn't work either because you're claiming that this God created the physical universe and everything in it.

Yes. Einstein once said that "now" is merely an illusion,
albeit a persistent one.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes. Einstein once said that "now" is merely an illusion,
albeit a persistent one.

Totally irrelevant.