Evolution is Fact

[Moontanman]

This battle of wits between some sort of design and total randomness ( to show the two extremes) is fatally flawed. What some see as design or others insist is random chance is simply chemical reactions following the laws of the universe. These laws can be sublime or obvious but they are not random nor are they in the control of a designer. These laws dictate not only which chemicals can start life, how that life comes to be, and the paths it takes. This makes things look like a designer is in place when in reality the design was fixed at the start. Since we cannot know of anything before the start or even really know the start it's self we do not know if the universe had to be the way it is or if it is just blind luck that we are here to perceive the idea of design. The fix was in at the beginning, as soon as the basic laws of the universe were established all that came after was as predictable as the sunrise. Even the fine details that seem to be random are governed by laws. We don't see iron giants evolving with internal steam engines because this would not be allowed inside the laws of the universe. Not because it just hasn't happened yet. No amount of randomness or design will bring about anything that cannot exist outside the laws of the universe! To be or not to be, that is the question!So now beat me up:eek:

[InfiniteNow]

Why has stupid been allowed to survive so long?

 

 

Evolution has a purpose? STFU...

 

 

The intelligent are being outbred by the inbred, and unsupported assertion being treated in higher regard than empircally grounded facts.

[Moontanman]

Why has stupid been allowed to survive so long?

 

 

Evolution has a purpose? STFU...

 

 

The intelligent are being outbred by the inbred, and unsupported assertion being treated in higher regard than empircally grounded facts.

 

Evolution has no purpose, evolution doesn't choose for the intelegent or the stupid, just the ones who survive to reproduce.

[TheBigDog]

Why has stupid been allowed to survive so long?

 

 

Evolution has a purpose? STFU...

 

 

The intelligent are being outbred by the inbred, and unsupported assertion being treated in higher regard than empircally grounded facts.

Evolution absolutely has a purpose: survival of life. The individual has the desire to procreate; competition in procreation drives evolution. The individual has needs for energy (food/sunlight); competition for energy drives evolution. With intelligence (as in man) comes the influence of social abstractions such as beauty, purpose, politics, nationalism, religion, economy, language, intelligence... all of these influence the competition that influences survival and reproduction and therefore evolution.

 

Is evolution doing this on purpose? No, evolution is simply a word that describes the process of life adapting to circumstance. But as an extension of the forces that drive the change, it absolutely has a purpose.

 

Should I STFU too?

 

Bill

[C1ay]

unconsciously creating.

 

Got a link? I couldn't find that definition in any reference I looked at.

[InfiniteNow]

Evolution absolutely has a purpose: survival of life.

That is not an inherent purpose in the process of change. It is simply a definition you have subjectively and arbitrarily applied to that process. There IS a difference, and it is an important one to note.

 

 

The individual has the desire to procreate; competition in procreation drives evolution.

Not all individuals have that drive to procreate, however, I do take your point that those who do not have this drive will (as a general, but not absolute, rule) slowly be selected against.

 

However, you have oversimplified evolution as nothing more than sexual selection, or non-random mating. My guess is that you meant to discuss the broader concept of natural selection (which is a two step process: variation and selection), and also has three forms: 1) Purifying or Stabilizing selection (also called "normalizing" selection); 2) Directional selection (this is generally the form to which most people will try to attribute end-states or goals); and 3) Disruptive selection. Regardles, your oversimplified approach of treating evolution as nothing more than selection ignores the concepts of genetic drift and allele frequency which are also needed to accurately describe the process.

 

Further, even if we do, for the moment, restrict our conversation to selection, we can see that your premise (individuals with desire to procreate and competition among those individuals drives evolution) is non-representative and false. All we must do to realize this is to show how environmental impacts and catastraphes impact a population. If that population is killed prior to spreading it's genes into the next generation, then it will be removed from the allele pool in a way that never involved their desire to procreate.

 

Since selection pressures come in the form of environmental effects and catastraphes, we can see that describing evolution as "goal oriented" or with "purpose" is completely null and void... It's a bunk and inaccurate approach to describing this process.

 

 

Is evolution doing this on purpose? No, evolution is simply a word that describes the process of life adapting to circumstance.

You are correct in that the answer to the question "is evolution doing this on purpose" is NO, but you then misspeak a bit when you give your new definition of evolution. It is not a process of "life adapting to circumstance."

 

 

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.

 

There are two major mechanisms driving evolution. The first is natural selection, which is a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits. Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment. In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce. Though the changes produced in any one generation by drift and selection are small, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms.

 

 

 

But as an extension of the forces that drive the change, it absolutely has a purpose.

Sorry, Bill, but repeating yourself doesn't offer any additional validity to an invalid point. This is your subjective and arbitrary label, and you need to see why it differs from the accepted definition (the one ultimately being challenged/defended in this thread).

 

 

 

Should I STFU too?

Well, that's entirely up to you, but based on the oversimplified misunderstandings and inaccuracies you've shown above, yes, I would encourage it. :Exclamati

 

 

 

If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.

[ramanand]

hi all,

i joined the discussion very late

One of may friend says that "evolution has got no definite direction and no definite goal".

For more than a century and a half, scientists have been gathering evidence that expands our understanding of both the fact and the processes of biological evolution. They are investigating how evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.The study of biological evolution has transformed our understanding of life on this planet. Evolution provides a scientific explanation for why there are so many different kinds of organisms on Earth and how all organisms on this planet are part of an evolutionary lineage. It demonstrates why some organisms that look quite different are in fact related, while other organisms that may look similar are only distantly related. It accounts for the appearance of humans on Earth and reveals our species’ biological connections with other living things. It details how different groups of humans are related to each other and how we acquired many of our traits. It enables the development of effective new ways to protect ourselves against constantly evolving bacteria and viruses.

Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations. Until the development of the science of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century, biologists did not understand the mechanisms responsible for the inheritance of traits from parents to offspring. The study of genetics showed that heritable traits originate from the DNA that is passed from one generation to the next. DNA contains segments called genes that direct the production of proteins required for the growth and function of cells. Genes also orchestrate the development of a single-celled egg into a multicellular organism. DNA is therefore responsible for the continuity of biological form and function across generations.

[Pyrotex]

This battle of wits between some sort of design and total randomness ( to show the two extremes) is fatally flawed. ...

OF COURSE it is fatally flawed. :Exclamati Neither extreme is true or plausible.

 

Nature IS "designed". Let's get real clear about that right now. An eyeball has a design. Eyes are very good at seeing. Wings are very good for flying. Spines are very good at supporting and distributing muscular forces. Richard Dawkins said as much in "The Blind Watchmaker".

 

In his metaphor, the watch was indeed designed by a watchmaker, but the watchmaker was blind, and totally lacking in intelligence or intention.

 

Evolution is hard to understand because it involves an apparent directedness, an apparent intention toward something like a "goal". But the design was NOT pre-ordained or externally intended. OF COURSE Evolution is hard to understand--there is nothing ELSE in our experience that is remotely similar to it. Our feeble attempts to establish metaphors typically go to the extremes of intelligent design or total randomness. LOSE! LOSE!

 

Evolution is NOT random. As previously explained, Natural Selection "guides" evolution. Over time, the animal or plant changes to become better suited to its environment. But Natural Selection has no intelligence behind it. It has direction and a "goal" if you will. Like water has the "goal" of going downhill.

 

Over geologic time every feature of the critter gets refined and improved, but only in the sense that this gives the critter an edge to survival over its unimproved cousins. Yes, this IS design, writ very slowly. But the "designer" is a natural force of nature, like gravity or potential energy. And this "designer" has a name: Natural Selection.

[TheBigDog]

That is not an inherent purpose in the process of change. It is simply a definition you have subjectively and arbitrarily applied to that process. There IS a difference, and it is an important one to note.

When I want a haircut I go to the barber. When I want a hair split I go to InfiniteNow. :hihi:

Not all individuals have that drive to procreate, however, I do take your point that those who do not have this drive will (as a general, but not absolute, rule) slowly be selected against.

 

However, you have oversimplified evolution as nothing more than sexual selection, or non-random mating. My guess is that you meant to discuss the broader concept of natural selection ... (yada yada yada) ... Regardles, your oversimplified approach of treating evolution as nothing more than selection ignores the concepts of genetic drift and allele frequency which are also needed to accurately describe the process.

 

Further, even if we do, for the moment, restrict our conversation to selection, we can see that your premise (individuals with desire to procreate and competition among those individuals drives evolution) is non-representative and false. All we must do to realize this is to show how environmental impacts and catastraphes impact a population. If that population is killed prior to spreading it's genes into the next generation, then it will be removed from the allele pool in a way that never involved their desire to procreate.

 

Since selection pressures come in the form of environmental effects and catastraphes, we can see that describing evolution as "goal oriented" or with "purpose" is completely null and void... It's a bunk and inaccurate approach to describing this process.

As "oversimplified" as I tried to be you managed to ignore much of what of what I stated.

The individual has needs for energy (food/sunlight); competition for energy drives evolution. With intelligence (as in man) comes the influence of social abstractions such as beauty, purpose, politics, nationalism, religion, economy, language, intelligence... all of these influence the competition that influences survival and reproduction and therefore evolution.

Perhaps I need to be more specific and state that zero energy = death; death = end of procreation; end of procreation = end of contribution to evolution. To pass on traits one must survive to breed. Period. I did not specifically include catastrophic events because they are simply another form of vetting survival traits. Some survive, some don't. Those that survive pass on their traits. When I stated the definition of evolution is "the process of life adapting to circumstance" the circumstance is inclusive of all forces that challenge the continuance of each individual life. I did not see the need to write out the minutia.

you then misspeak a bit when you give your new definition of evolution. It is not a process of "life adapting to circumstance."

 

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The definition you provided states exactly the same thing as my single sentence. It just goes into greater detail; detail that does not add to the point that I am making, and detail that does not disprove the point that I am making.

Since selection pressures come in the form of environmental effects and catastraphes, we can see that describing evolution as "goal oriented" or with "purpose" is completely null and void... It's a bunk and inaccurate approach to describing this process.

I never said or implied that evolution was goal oriented, I said that it had purpose; that purpose is survival of life. The form that survives the best is not predetermined, it is the result of the random circumstances that challenge all life forms. It is arriving at an engineering solution through the ultimate trial and error process and the experiment doesn't end as long as life survives.

 

Should I STFU too?

Well, that's entirely up to you, but based on the oversimplified misunderstandings and inaccuracies you've shown above, yes, I would encourage it.

It would seem that the oversimplification was done by you, and the misunderstanding was yours. Either of us expecting the other to STFU is pretty pointless and would make this place boring.

 

Evolution is fact. Evolution has purpose. The purpose of evolution is the survival of life. I am simply carrying your point one step further.

 

Bill

[Moontanman]

OF COURSE it is fatally flawed. :hihi: Neither extreme is true or plausible.

 

Nature IS "designed". Let's get real clear about that right now. An eyeball has a design. Eyes are very good at seeing. Wings are very good for flying. Spines are very good at supporting and distributing muscular forces. Richard Dawkins said as much in "The Blind Watchmaker".

 

In his metaphor, the watch was indeed designed by a watchmaker, but the watchmaker was blind, and totally lacking in intelligence or intention.

 

Evolution is hard to understand because it involves an apparent directedness, an apparent intention toward something like a "goal". But the design was NOT pre-ordained or externally intended. OF COURSE Evolution is hard to understand--there is nothing ELSE in our experience that is remotely similar to it. Our feeble attempts to establish metaphors typically go to the extremes of intelligent design or total randomness. LOSE! LOSE!

 

Evolution is NOT random. As previously explained, Natural Selection "guides" evolution. Over time, the animal or plant changes to become better suited to its environment. But Natural Selection has no intelligence behind it. It has direction and a "goal" if you will. Like water has the "goal" of going downhill.

 

Over geologic time every feature of the critter gets refined and improved, but only in the sense that this gives the critter an edge to survival over its unimproved cousins. Yes, this IS design, writ very slowly. But the "designer" is a natural force of nature, like gravity or potential energy. And this "designer" has a name: Natural Selection.

 

Thanks for backing me up Pyro;) The initial "set" of the laws of the universe are in fact the "designer" natural selection operates with in these laws or initial set points. Nothing will occur that violates these "laws" once you know what is possible everything falls into place like the parts of a watch......... we cannot know if the rules of the way matter interacts within the universe, we do not know what would happen if these laws were different, maybe life would take other routes to exist or maybe life wouldn't exist at all maybe the universe cannot come into being unless it can allow life to form. there is no way to know, all we know is that in our universe chemicals can indeed come together in way that allows Natural Selection to bring about complex life and intelligence to ponder the possibilities of why or why not.

[InfiniteNow]

I never said or implied that evolution was goal oriented, I said that it had purpose; that purpose is survival of life.

I guess I'll have to split more hairs then. What the hell is the difference between something being "goal oriented" and something having a "purpose?"

 

 

Evolution is fact.

Agreed.

 

Evolution has purpose.

Disagreed. You have simply reasserted the same point without offering support of it.

 

The purpose of evolution is the survival of life.

This can only be true if you first prove your assertion that evolution has a purpose at all. As my sources showed, evolution is simply a process of change. Sometimes these changes are beneficial, sometimes they are deleterious. Evolution is "the change," evolution is not "the improvement."

 

I'm sorry, Bill, but evolution does NOT have a purpose, and even if it did, that purpose could not accurately be described as "the survival of life."

 

I understand that I'm being a bit pedantic here, but I'm simply trying to eliminate confusions which may be caused by people reading your posts.

 

Be well. :hihi:

[TheBigDog]

Disagreed. You have simply reasserted the same point without offering support of it.

To the contrary, I very specifically clarified my assertions and pointed out part of my statement that you choose to ignore. That is precisely offering support of the argument.

As my sources showed, evolution is simply a process of change. Sometimes these changes are beneficial, sometimes they are deleterious. Evolution is "the change," evolution is not "the improvement."

All evolution is toward improvement of the ability to survive.

There are two major mechanisms driving evolution. The first is natural selection, which is a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits. Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment. In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce. Though the changes produced in any one generation by drift and selection are small, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms.

Best-suited for their environment... hmmm... inferior? worse? hmmm... It really sounds like improved survival is implied by natural selection. Both beneficial and deleterious changes happen, but the deleterious ones tend to be reduced in the population, while the beneficial ones become pronounced.

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.

 

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WOW!!! It is not implied, it is the very core of natural selection!

 

Let me address the question of "Purpose" versus "Goal Oriented".

Goal: the state of affairs that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates behavior intended to achieve it

 

Purpose: reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.

To say that evolution is "goal oriented" would imply that it is trying to achieve a specific end point. Evolution does not have a specific end point that it is trying to achieve. It is not trying to make the perfect rabbit or the perfect person, it is trying to take what we know as a rabbit and improve its ability to compete and survive; it is trying to take what we know as a person and improve its ability to compete and survive. In the process rabbits may become something other than a rabbit, and people may become something other than people. And rabbits may not keep up with the demands of competition and disappear, and people may do the same thing. The grand purpose of evolution is survival of life. It is a purpose because it is never ending. There is no point at which evolution drops anchor and decides it doesn't need to happen anymore, or that no more changes are necessary.

 

I think the reason that you are avoiding the use of "goal oriented" is to avoid people linking what you are saying to ID. I am not linking evolution to ID. I am saying that evolution improves survivability. It does this constantly. Changes from mutation are random, but that allows for greater variety of trial and error. The deleterious changes end up as dead ends, and yes those individuals so blessed are not apt to survive, thus indicating that some "evolution" does not increase survival. But evolution is about the species as a whole over the long term. Even as some species are evolving for better survival, they can become extinct because they are not evolving fast enough to keep up with the competition or changes to the environment. This does not mean that the evolution for those species did not have the same purpose as the evolution of the winners, it just means that some evolve more effectively than others.

 

So by those definitions, evolution is not a goal as it does not have an end state. It has a purpose because its reason for existing is the continuous improvement of each specie's ability to survive - the survival of life.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

So, if evolution is for "continuous improvement" and "survival," then why have health issues like asthma, cancer, congenital malformations, diabetes, diptheria, heart disease, infertility, lupus, obesity, osteoporosis, rubella, SIDS, typhoid fever, and various birth defects evolved?

 

I know you agree with me on this, it's just that the words you are choosing to express this are NOT accurate.

 

Evolution is NOT improvement. It is change. That is my primary point.

 

Those changes can be either good or bad, but evolution describes the change, not the improvement.

[Pyrotex]

...Evolution is NOT improvement. It is change. That is my primary point. Those changes can be either good or bad, but evolution describes the change, not the improvement.

Good point.

 

"Good" and "bad" are human judgements. The Nevada Cave Fish once had eyes, now it has whitish bumps where eyes used to be. The fish is now blind, though it once could see. Is this a good or a bad change?

 

IT'S BAD!! Omigod, that poor, poor fish, it can't see anymore, and it bumps into walls and it'll never enjoy a sunset or see the liddle fishy-lips of its mate, omigod... BOO-HOO!!!!!!! :eek_big:;) :doh:

 

Gimme a break. :hihi: Losing the eyes was a survival adaptation. Energy and protein and whatever else were SAVED for other purposes by losing the ability to see. And in the lightless caverns, it had no use for eyes.

 

I have this hunch that the point TBD and/or YOU may (may) be missing is that the "direction" that Natural Selection is pushing, pulling, guiding that fish -- that "direction" or selection "force" is itself constantly changing. NS is pushing the fish towards BETTER eyes, and then WOOPS, a colony of the fish is swept into a cavern, and now NS is pushing the fish towards BETTER vibration detection or sense of smell. Screw the eyes. In fact, whatever resources were being devoted to eyes can now be freed up for something more important.

 

Evolution, since it is being driven by NS, doesn't just merely change the critter, it of necessity changes the critter in the direction of better survival. AND THAT DIRECTION can itself change without warning.

[univac]

The point is that energy forms all matter, and matter doesn;t form all energy.

If one:s interpretatoin of energy is , ethier possible or not possible for Human mind (recorded memory) to be still perpetual after the absence of the physicial body?

Nobody can prove life after death nor can anybody prove that life evolved unless you were there to experence it.

But we know there is a sun (energy) and life(energy and matter) because we can see and feel it, thats reality.

 

Evolution was not witnessed by mankind making it non fact

 

But the Bible was witnessed by mankind making it a fact.

[freeztar]

The point is that energy forms all matter, and matter doesn;t form all energy.

 

Can you provide a source for this? I've always seen matter/energy as equals.

:hihi:

If one:s interpretatoin of energy is , ethier possible or not possible for Human mind (recorded memory) to be still perpetual after the absence of the physicial body?

Nobody can prove life after death nor can anybody prove that life evolved unless you were there to experence it.

 

True, but we can make some very accurate conclusions based upon evidence left behind (DNA, fossils, etc.).

 

But we know there is a sun (energy) and life(energy and matter) because we can see and feel it, thats reality.

 

Evolution was not witnessed by mankind making it non fact

Evolution can be seen within a human lifetime. I see no reason to throw out the *theory* of evolution.

But the Bible was witnessed by mankind making it a fact.

 

That's rather funny! Can you name the person responsible for the bible? How is it "fact"?

[univac]

.

 

 

Originally Posted by Univac

The point is that energy forms all matter, and matter doesn’t form all energy.

 

Can you provide a source for this? I've always seen matter/energy as equals.

 

Without energy there are no forms of matter only condensed space as one might call black matter.

 

Quote:

If one’s interpretation of energy is, ether possible or not possible for Human mind (recorded memory) to be still perpetual after the absence of the physical body?

Nobody can prove life after death nor can anybody prove that life evolved unless you were there to experience it.

 

True, but we can make some very accurate conclusions based upon evidence left behind (DNA, fossils) etc.

 

Conclusions are only assumptions not facts, DNA is only a make up of a structure and fossils is only dead energy formed matter.

 

Evolution can be seen within a human lifetime. I see no reason to throw out the *theory* of evolution.

 

Like what a caterpillar.?

 

Quote:

But the Bible was witnessed by mankind making it a fact.

 

That's rather funny! Can you name the person responsible for the bible? How is it "fact"?

 

At the time of Moses a material conductor called the ark was designed by God and built by Moses for the purpose of communication, this was after he personally spoke to God in Zion. (Fact)

 

Moses is credited with writing all the first five books instructed by the word of God through the conduction of ark namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.(Fact)

After this time people were chosen to be conductors called prophets as King David, Solomon, Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Follow by the promised birth of Christ Jesus to indorse the Bible authenticity and the return of the holly spirit to all man kind which Adam and eve lost by unfaithfulness. Then came the twelve apostles the last conductors of God, for the purpose of salvation.(Fact)