Does evolution have a purpose?

[Valjean]

The "end" is the purpose. Evolution isn't just change, it is a means and mechanism of biological change as explanation for speciation. It is a construct; and as a construct it was developed by humans to explain an aspect of nature (an "end") to other humans.

So whose goal is evolution? Whose purpose is it?

 

[Dropship]

Does evolution have a purpose?
-If yes what is it?
-If no, why not?

Well the survival of the fittest makes good sense and we can see it happening on youtube when lions catch the slowest and unfit buffalos, but on a larger timescale I like Senator John McCains observation-
"When I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset I see evolution, but I also see God's hand behind it"

In other words, evolution/survival of the fittest needs God's hand to tweak it from time to time to keep it on track..

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out"

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe organisms have "selfish genes." An organism may be a genome's way of reproducing itself, and codes for whatever behaviors will most successfully multiply the genome. The actual organisms are just reproductive organs, and disposable.
The Selfish Gene Theory: How Does It Work? | Shortform Books

yeah, very funny. (on the border of ridiculous.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Well the survival of the fittest makes good sense and we can see it happening on youtube when lions catch the slowest and unfit buffalos, but on a larger timescale I like Senator John McCains observation-
"When I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset I see evolution, but I also see God's hand behind it"

In other words, evolution/survival of the fittest needs God's hand to tweak it from time to time to keep it on track..

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out"
View attachment 56077

A lamb is much prettier than that ugly thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

What's to explain?
Evolution has no purpose; no intended goal. It works automatically.

Survival is a goal in my opinion.

That in itself would make evolution a fake concept. To think that sheer chemicals that combine have a mindset is beyond reason. In other words, ridiculous.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That in itself would make evolution a fake concept. To think that sheer chemicals that combine have a mindset is beyond reason. In other words, ridiculous.

What makes evolution a fake concept?

What are you referring to here with your talk of "sheer chemicals" combining?

The theory of evolution is not a theory explaining chemical reactions.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I said, such "purpose" is a social concept created by man. It is not a part of the evolutionary process.

I was passing a bunch of cows today. They were munching on grass. Humans eat cows. I cannot imagine it just happened by evolution that these grass grazing animals evolved differently from carnivores with sharp teeth and claws. But I know a lot of people don't agree with me on that.

 

[YoursTrue]

The "end" is the purpose. Evolution isn't just change, it is a means and mechanism of biological change as explanation for speciation. It is a construct; and as a construct it was developed by humans to explain an aspect of nature (an "end") to other humans.

Could be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was passing a bunch of cows today. They were munching on grass. Humans eat cows. I cannot imagine it just happened by evolution that these grass grazing animals evolved differently from carnivores with sharp teeth and claws. But I know a lot of people don't agree with me on that.

Do you think magic perhaps?

 

[KWED]

I understand your point. Some do have hope. It's a fairly natural process because -- few really want to die. Of course people hope for different things. What do you think?

Any emotion is unrelated to evolution. It is not a conscious process that requires sentience or agency.

The ultimate supposed outcome of the process of the theory of evolution is death.

No. The opposite, in fact. The outcome is continued life.

 

[KWED]

Gotta say when I was taking biology in school, the teacher said that animals have a natural instinct to run away from danger. Instinct. He was talking about evolution with the 'fight or flight' instinct.

"Fight or flight" is not an evolutionary process in itself. However, evolution may result in a species becoming better at running away or fighting.

I believed it. I believed almost anything they taught about the theory. I take that back -- I believed anything they taught. At time. Just sayin'...(P.S. not saying it's not true -- fight or flight instinct - about animals. Well, some animals -- salmon go upstream and then die. I don't think they 'think' much about it, do you?)

If a person misunderstands science, it doesn't make science wrong.

 

[KWED]

I was passing a bunch of cows today. They were munching on grass. Humans eat cows. I cannot imagine it just happened by evolution that these grass grazing animals evolved differently from carnivores with sharp teeth and claws. But I know a lot of people don't agree with me on that.

This is called "the fallacy of personal incredulity". Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that no one else does.
This is particularly important when people with no scientific qualifications reject mountains of evidence and millions of man-hours or research by experts in their field, simply because they don't understand it.

To use an analogy, just because the child doesn't understand how their iPad works, doesn't mean it must be magic.

 

[KWED]

Well the survival of the fittest makes good sense and we can see it happening on youtube when lions catch the slowest and unfit buffalos,

That's not what "survival of the fittest" means. Darwin used the term to describe individuals "most fit" or "best fitted" for their environment". It doesn't mean the most hench!

but on a larger timescale I like Senator John McCains observation-
"When I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset I see evolution, but I also see God's hand behind it"

Evolution does not require "god's hand". It merely adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that requires an explanation. See "Occam's razor".

In other words, evolution/survival of the fittest needs God's hand to tweak it from time to time to keep it on track..

Does it? In what way. How is this divine intervention apparent?
[/QUOTE]

 

[KWED]

A lamb is much prettier than that ugly thing.

Not sure if Darwin proposed "survival of the cutest".

 

[KWED]

To think that sheer chemicals that combine have a mindset is beyond reason. In other words, ridiculous.

What do you think your consciousness is?
It's just a series of electro-chemical reactions.

 

[Dropship]

..evolution/survival of the fittest needs God's hand to tweak it from time to time to keep it on track..

Does it? In what way. How is this divine intervention apparent?

Creatures like this one are TOO PERFECT to have been created by random evolution on it's own..

 

[Mock Turtle]

Survival of The Prettiest by Nancy Etcoff is worth a mention here, but not that relevant perhaps - apart from arguing that our notions of beauty are in our make-up.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If it did not exist we would still be single celled life forms.
It has a purpose to increase the odds of survival. However it is not a conscious purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creatures like this one are TOO PERFECT to have been created by random evolution on it's own..

View attachment 56164

Yes, it is a good thing that evolution is not random.

I see that you are another creationists that does not even understand the basics of evolution. Rather than dragging this out, variation is random. That is correct. But natural selection is not. If evolution ran only by variation you would be right. But it does not only rely on the random part of evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

Creatures like this one are TOO PERFECT to have been created by random evolution on it's own..

View attachment 56164

What about these two?