Forums | MacLife

It's basically the watchmaker argument.

Even if you made all the parts for a Rolex - no matter how long you shook them in a bag, the parts would never come together in a meaningful way to make a watch that can be used for any kind of time measurement, even basic time measurement.

And for the record - the context of that statement was not evolution vs creation.
It was whether or not snakes evolved from varanids. Evolution was a given in that discussion.

ScifiterX wrote:

My point is no system or process is indefinable, it's just that no definition encompasses all aspects.

Evolution, the science, does have a purpose; to expand our understanding of an aspect of nature. Evolution, the process, may have a purpose depending on various factors. The prime factor is one's definition of purpose. If one's definition is function then yes it does. If one's definition is intent then the answer lies in theology not science.

When res was saying "evolution has no purpose" I think he meant it in the sense that evolution the process is not working towards any particular goal, it's just an emergent property of the system of the universe. At least, this is almost certainly the context the scientists he was talking to meant, and is an accurate assessment of how a biologist would treat the issue.

mo' ron wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

My point is no system or process is indefinable, it's just that no definition encompasses all aspects.

Evolution, the science, does have a purpose; to expand our understanding of an aspect of nature. Evolution, the process, may have a purpose depending on various factors. The prime factor is one's definition of purpose. If one's definition is function then yes it does. If one's definition is intent then the answer lies in theology not science.

When res was saying "evolution has no purpose" I think he meant it in the sense that evolution the process is not working towards any particular goal

Correct.
Those arguing against varanid evolution into snakes were arguing that varanids (monitors, ie komodo dragon, etc.) are more intelligent than snakes and biologically more advanced - but those arguing for the evolution were making it very clear that evolution does not exist or attempt to make things more advanced. It has no goal, no purpose, it is merely the effect of random mutations and natural selection.

Either the mutation is beneficial to a population or it isn't - and beneficial often means losing "advanced" characteristics. IE - fish in the deepest parts of the ocean, vision doesn't do them any good - but eyes are an organ that damage easily resulting in infection. So it is beneficial to those fish population to reduce or even lose their eyes.

Last edited by resedit (2008-07-19 4:56 am)

The biggest problem is people assume evolution moves to complexity. One could say evolution works toward what will survive. Sometimes it's more advanced life sometimes simpler. Mutation moves in random directions. Natural selection moves in general directions that aren't always logical or consistent with each other.

The definition has been given.
No definition I can give is going to satisfy you, because you will want to find a problem with it.

You must HAVE missed it.

Paul98 wrote:

where is the definition? I must of missed it.

A couple pages back.
I didn't give it - just pointed out this bacteria mutation didn't fit it.

D'Eyncourt either posted it or posted a link to it. He tried to say this bacteria mutation nullified it, but it didn't.
I'm sure if you google, you can find it defined several places.

However - you won't accept them as valid, because to do so, you would have to reject your religious like believe that random mutation resulted in the first spontaneous generation life form evolving into complex organisms like water buffalo. You are not willing to reject that, so you are not capable of looking at any definition of irreducible complexity without extreme bias dictating your rejection of it.

That's the bottom line, and why me repeating or linking to a definition isn't going to benefit this discussion one iota.

If you really wanted a definition, it would be easy for you to find. You don't want one, but rather, you want to reject whatever one I post.

The reason I wanted your definition is because I didn't want to talk about one then you come back with something like that isn't the definition I use. I did find the "definition" it was in a quote in an earlier post. But since I don't know enough about how this Cit+ works I can't really say anything about IC.

Last edited by Paul98 (2008-07-19 6:32 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

The biggest problem is people assume evolution moves to complexity. One could say evolution works toward what will survive. Sometimes it's more advanced life sometimes simpler. Mutation moves in random directions. Natural selection moves in general directions that aren't always logical or consistent with each other.

I would say that the best way to look at evolution is not that it moves towards anything or works towards anything. Evolution is not a force or a law - it is our name for the observation that life forms mutate spontaneously and randomly and what survives survives.

Many fall into the trap of making value judgments about evolutionary change. Organisms that evolve from other organisms are not "better" than the older organism. From a strict scientific standpoint, survival isn't a "good" or "bad" thing - it's simply a description of what happens when certain traits are in certain environments. The seemingly relentless drive for organisms to procreate has led us to see that drive as something that life "wants." This is, of course, a needless personification. The palm tree outside isn't trying to do anything. It just moves and grows according to its genetic code which happens to promote the reproduction of itself.

Only a human can want to survive or not. Only a human can determine if passing on genes is a good thing or not. From the perspective of science, mutations that allow survival or not are as value-neutral as sitting in an armchair or a couch.

resedit wrote:

The seemingly relentless drive for organisms to procreate has led us to see that drive as something that life "wants."

The theory is that natural selection chooses those that want to reproduce and do reproduce, because those that produce more young will spread their genes which code the desire to reproduce.

This is why language is such a tricky thing. I used the word "drive" because using the word "want" may imply a willful decision to some. For animals which do not have free will as humans do, I would be more likely to say that the drive to reproduce is stronger in some than others and that this trait is passed on.

I just don't like phrasing like "natural selection chooses" because natural selection is not a thing or a force or a will that can choose. It's simply a description of what happens.

The process is the effect in a cause effect relationship.
Isolate a population from gene flow, and it will eventually speciate from the rest of the larger population.
Easy to see with island populations.