Happy Wonderer

The sieve exists by the basic properties of life, just as liquid water on earth exists because of basic properties of hydrogen, oxygen, and the earth.

If
1) Life is not immortal
2) Life reproduces, but imperfectly
3) The earth is dynamic , nonuniform, and has finite resources
4) Reproduction depends upon resources
5) No outside interference

then I'd say that evolution was pretty much inevitible as long as there happen to be surviving lifeforms.


HW

Keith

From Webster's:

Purpose- 1. something one intends to get or do; intention; aim.

Purposeful- 1. resolutely aiming at a specific goal. 2. directed toward a specific end ; not meaningless.



This is what I mean.

Keith

Keith

I think this question can be answered in a number of ways depending on the conditions. Were the eyes and ears incidentally found laying on the rock, or were they somehow formed on the rock?

Keith

Starboy

Keith, why are you being so coy? Let's remove all of what would be considered the natural purposes. Are there any left that you would subscribe to? Is there a reason why you are being so deceptive? Do you have to fool people into agreeing with you?

Starboy

Some Loser

You would add that these traits serve a purpose? Actually I already said that. All you are adding is that I am "admitting that nature does display purpose". Saying that traits have a purpose and that nature displays a purpose are two different things. The reason why is because each statement uses the word "purpose" in two different contexts.

My statement:
Traits have a purpose = Traits have a reason for existing.
Cancel like terms....
purpose = reason for existing

Now apply to your nature statement:

Nature has a purpose = Nature has a reason for existing.

Thus my use of the word "purpose" in your statement takes on a meaning other than the one you are using it to mean.

But I am not "claiming to understand the goal-making changes that are going to be useful now". I am only reasoning that any changes that are not useful now will not allow creatures to survive any better and thus will not have any effect on evolution.

Keith

This is the kind of assumption that cannot logically be allowed. If the process you're describing is non-purposeful, you will not have any way of knowing today, which traits you're presently observing are/aren't neutral, either now, or into the future. The best you can do is to admit that some traits have no currently known function. You will then be ignorant as to whether a particular segment of code has any bearing on survival. The future path of evolutionary changes is both unpredictable and completely unknowable, and so are most of the future characteristics of the environment.

Keith

Keith

Sorry about that. I somehow double-posted my last one.

Keith

Keith

You can't know now, which non-useful changes (that aren't lethal) are not going to have any evolutionary effect on a particular creature in the future.

Keith

Keith

It just happened again.

Keith

Doubting Didymus

Never fear, Problem fixed!

I live only to serve.