Does evolution have a purpose?

[YoursTrue]

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

Could be -- likely that is true. When I'm asleep I don't know too much about what's going on. But! that does not mean that my consciousness and conscience can change. If I were in a coma I would not be conscious of much, if at all. I was just under anesthesia recently and didn't remember anything. All I remember is that I went to 'sleep' almost immediately after the injection and woke up, period. Anyway, a cow's consciousness is obviously chemically (?) different from my consciousness. And I saw ducks flying in the sky, quacking amazingly as they went, which is why I looked up. They flew in almost a single line. Fantastic. Their consciousness is different than my consciousness. Meanwhile, I think the 'chemistry' is implanted and designated by God.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

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

Oh, so you think evolution has a purpose? A conscious purpose? Of course, humans and cows, etc., do die each individually, that's true, so the emerging organisms are kind of like born to die. Each. Unless, of course, a meteor or disease knocks the species out. But then, that would be the end of the evolutionary process for them in terms of constant birth. Change, and mutation.

 

[KWED]

Could be -- likely that is true. When I'm asleep I don't know too much about what's going on. But! that does not mean that my consciousness and conscience can change. If I were in a coma I would not be conscious of much, if at all. I was just under anesthesia recently and didn't remember anything. All I remember is that I went to 'sleep' almost immediately after the injection and woke up, period. Anyway, a cow's consciousness is obviously chemically (?) different from my consciousness. And I saw ducks flying in the sky, quacking amazingly as they went, which is why I looked up. They flew in almost a single line. Fantastic. Their consciousness is different than my consciousness.

There isn't just a difference between species, there is a difference between individual humans.
And yes, we can change our consciousness and even personality through chemical, physical and electrical intervention.
General anaesthetic and coma are a result of suppressed electro-chemical activity in the brain.

Meanwhile, I think the 'chemistry' is implanted and designated by God.

But why add an extra layer of complexity that itself needs explaining, where none is required?
Do you also think god is required for every natural process, like photosynthesis or internal combustion or magnetism?

 

[KWED]

Oh, so you think evolution has a purpose? A conscious purpose?

where did you get that idea from? Certainly not from anything I said.

Of course, humans and cows, etc., do die each individually, that's true, so the emerging organisms are kind of like born to die. Each. Unless, of course, a meteor or disease knocks the species out. But then, that would be the end of the evolutionary process for them in terms of constant birth. Change, and mutation.

Death is a function of the biological nature of the living organism in question. It is not a function of evolution. The process of evolution does not cause individuals to die, rather it means they are more likely to live.

 

[Dropship]

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?
View attachment 56208

What about them? Hitler genuinely thought he was an alright guy, but led Germany to total defeat.

 

[Yerda]

To answer the OP, no it doesn't.

It's a higher level phenomenon that arises out of the inherent instability of the replication process. To say it literally has a purpose is to make a categorical error, imo.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

So would you then say that evolution is not biologically socially conscious? Or... conscious at all?

 

[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.

Huh?

 

[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

Lol ok about maybe they have selfish genes? After all, Eve was kind of selfish and Adam was hateful towards his creator so maybe they passed on their genetics in thàt their decisions affected their bodies (obviously) and thinking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So would you then say that evolution is not biologically socially conscious? Or... conscious at all?

Huh? What?

 

[Astrophile]

What about them? Hitler genuinely thought he was an alright guy, but led Germany to total defeat.

So do you accept that because Hitler and Himmler were imperfect they could have been produced entirely by random evolution?

 

[KWED]

So would you then say that evolution is not biologically socially conscious? Or... conscious at all?

The process of evolution is not conscious in any way.

 

[KWED]

Lol ok about maybe they have selfish genes? After all, Eve was kind of selfish and Adam was hateful towards his creator so maybe they passed on their genetics in thàt their decisions affected their bodies (obviously) and thinking.

This was one of Dawkins' mistakes.
Although he wasn't using the term "selfish" in the context of the human emotion, he should have know that creationists, etc, would latch onto it, often disingenuously; similar to how they misrepresent "fit" in Spencer's "survival of the fittest". (It wasn't Darwin who coined the phrase BTW)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Talking to creationists seems like talking to a European or a Middle-eastern person in the dark ages, and by Cthulhu, stubborn as a mule. No reasoning reaches them.

 

[Dropship]

So do you accept that because Hitler and Himmler were imperfect they could have been produced entirely by random evolution?

Not necessarily, they might have been alright as kids, but later "spiritual pollution" crept into their heads and warped their minds like it does to lots of people who are spiritually shallow-

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this...to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27)

 

[KWED]

Talking to creationists seems like talking to a European or a Middle-eastern person in the dark ages, and by Cthulhu, stubborn as a mule. No reasoning reaches them.

 

[KWED]

Not necessarily, they might have been alright as kids, but later "spiritual pollution" crept into their heads and warped their minds like it does to lots of people

Indeed. When you have trusted adults filling children's heads with ideas of spiritual supremacism and eternal torture for out-groups and dissenters, not to mention tales of rape, murder, conquest and subjugation held up as great and good deeds - it is not surprising that some of them go off the rails!

 

[Dropship]

Indeed. When you have trusted adults filling children's heads with ideas of spiritual supremacism and eternal torture for out-groups and dissenters, not to mention tales of rape, murder, conquest and subjugation held up as great and good deeds - it is not surprising that some of them go off the rails!

I don't think Jesus said to do any of that nasty stuff did he?..

 

[KWED]

I don't think Jesus said to do any of that nasty stuff did he?..

Have you read the Bible?

 

[YoursTrue]

This was one of Dawkins' mistakes.
Although he wasn't using the term "selfish" in the context of the human emotion, he should have know that creationists, etc, would latch onto it, often disingenuously; similar to how they misrepresent "fit" in Spencer's "survival of the fittest". (It wasn't Darwin who coined the phrase BTW)

I doubt the following is a "creationist" website, you think? (Forbes magazine...) Here is, in part, what the article says about "science." (I'm learning, thanks to so many of you...And by the way, the Bible is not a scientific textbook.)
" And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.
Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility." An -- impossibility. So thank you, all.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth (forbes.com)
(I'm learning. Because when I was in school and before I studied the Bible, I believed every "scientific theory," or scientific fact (?) they taught me. And because I could memorize pretty well, grasping concepts, I did rather well in school as well.
Anyway, y'all have a good night.