The explanatory power of evolution.

[kallipolis]

But natural selection is not random at all. Mutations are random and the diversity that can be produced by the imperfect replications of cells is random, but natural selection is not random. It is the process in which the most beneficial traits would survive while the traits that harm the survival of the species die off. If it were random, then I could understand the points, but it is not, nor does anyone claim that it is. Once life starts and imperfectly replicates, natural selection happens.

Correct...natural selection being purpose driven.

 

[kallipolis]

Professor Einstein provides us with a more enlightening understanding of the purpose driven universe:

The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly

 

[Kulindahr]

But natural selection is not random at all. Mutations are random and the diversity that can be produced by the imperfect replications of cells is random, but natural selection is not random. It is the process in which the most beneficial traits would survive while the traits that harm the survival of the species die off. If it were random, then I could understand the points, but it is not, nor does anyone claim that it is. Once life starts and imperfectly replicates, natural selection happens.

There's a lot of randomness in natural selection, though it comes from the outside: a new mutation that would be extremely beneficial can be lost because a volcano wiped out those with it before it spread through the entire species, for example.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fruit trees have a purpose...they produce fruit in season....that feeds animals, and people...the evidence of the purpose is made crystal clear when the fruit is consumed.

Human beings have purpose when serving one another...the proof is the benefit that mankind accrues...who, or what inspires the human person to act in an altruistic manner?...I would say, the universe....proving that the universe is the catalyst of a purpose driven plan for human life...et al...the cynic might suggest that human altruistic behaviour is merely a random gesture...back to the beginning of this thread suggesting that the universe lacks purpose despite their being sufficient proof that purpose is part of the creating function of the universe.

You're saying "purpose" when what you mean is "function". "Purpose" implies a goal, a reason they came to be; function is what they happen to do.

 

[Kulindahr]

Professor Einstein provides us with a more enlightening understanding of the purpose driven universe:

Einstein is saying that any appearance of purpose is imposed by the human mind. Purpose is an invention we come up with to make sense of what we see; it is not inherent in the universe.

 

[kallipolis]

You're saying "purpose" when what you mean is "function". "Purpose" implies a goal, a reason they came to be; function is what they happen to do.

No...I'm definetly saying, purpose...there is purpose in evolution...the function of evolution reveals purpose.

Improving the human condition is a dream that suggests that we..the human person.. have collective responsibility for one another, and that society is perfectible despite the savagery of class, ego, wealth and human selfishness....this is a purpose, or goal if you wish that many of us on these forums discuss every day towards improving the lot of the human person.

 

[kallipolis]

Einstein is saying that any appearance of purpose is imposed by the human mind. Purpose is an invention we come up with to make sense of what we see; it is not inherent in the universe.

No...Albert Einstein is clearly writing of the universe....Einstein's words:

We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly

 

[andysayshi]

No...I'm definetly saying, purpose...there is purpose in evolution...the function of evolution reveals purpose.

I would argue that there is only one purpose that a fruit tree has: to replicate, thus preserving and proliferating it's DNA. (Richard Dawkins says so in "The Selfish Gene". )

This is the only TRUE purpose of any life form. Beyond that is mere function. Fruit trees which produce palatable fruit that animals like to eat are more successful, because the animals eat the fruit and spread the seeds as they throw away or defecate them. But the fruit tree's purpose is not to feed those animals, it's to extend the spread of it's DNA to continue that DNA's existence. The peripheral processes that assist a fruit tree to preserve its DNA are in no way purposeful to the tree, they're just convenient and functional, as natural selection has proven.

Improving the human condition is a dream that suggests that we..the human person.. have collective responsibility for one another, and that society is perfectible despite the savagery of class, ego, wealth and human selfishness....this is a purpose, or goal if you wish that many of us on these forums discuss every day towards improving the lot of the human person.

Dawkins argues that we have selectively evolved into a very complex organism that preserves each other (on occasion) in order to better the whole population. Why does a stranger jump in front of a speeding car to save the life of a person he doesn't know? Why does a fireman risk his life to save strangers from a burning building? Because we have evolved to protect ourselves as a community as much as individuals, with the underlying logic that the community itself is a structure which protects individuals for replication and proliferation. Some brains are more likely to make selfless acts than others, perhaps a combination of evolutionary variants and environmental ethical beliefs.

But such ethical decisions are fairly high cognitive functions, not base evolutionary imperatives. You can see selfless acts from other animals, including apes, dogs and dolphins, to name a few. But deep down, all our selflessness and protective nature and drive to do "good" are rooted to our base purpose: to preserve our DNA in coming generations.

This is quite a conundrum for a homosexual: most of us won't pass our DNA to an offspring. But therein lies the complexity of our life form. We all no doubt will seek answers to a greater purpose as to why we are who and what we are.

 

[kallipolis]

^From Richard Dawkin's perspective it's all a matter of DNA suggesting that homo sapiens is a prisoner of its genes...contesting my belief in the ableness of human life to better itself without being tethered to its past by genetic handcuffs...for were we to believe that human life is a prisoner of our DNA then why are acts of selflessness determined by some individuals...and, not others why is compassion, and selfless actions not a standard response among all human beings...why is human altruistic behaviour, selective...

.....Why are some human beings altruistic, or more altruistic than others....likewise, animals....invites us to question the validity of the argument proposed by Professor Dawkins that DNA is always the cause, and effect of human decision making....

....back to fruit trees...that they flourish as result of their fruits being eaten, and their seeds spread far, and wide suggests that the purpose of a fruit tree is revealed through its function, sharing its fruit for all who benefit from its seasonal harvest....definitely, evidencing purpose revealed in its function as a provider of food.

 

[bdiddy4489]

There's a lot of randomness in natural selection, though it comes from the outside: a new mutation that would be extremely beneficial can be lost because a volcano wiped out those with it before it spread through the entire species, for example.

But natural selection is still taking place. The environment is always changing, and you have just given a drastic example. Mutations are random and environment changes can be random, but natural selection is not random. I suppose I can clarify that it is the trend that the most beneficial mutations that make the species best fit for their current environment will continue to pass on because of its increased chances of reproduction and survival. In the state of the volcano, the environment had just changed (randomly) but natural selection will still take place and the populations within a species best fit for this change will continue to reproduce better than those that are not.

 

[andysayshi]

.....Why are some human beings altruistic, or more altruistic than others....likewise, animals....invites us to question the validity of the argument proposed by Professor Dawkins that DNA is always the cause, and effect of human decision making....

But Dawkins does not say this. He very specifically, and repeatedly, recognises that our evolved complexity supersedes our genetic imperative to protect our personal DNA. As I said above, our cognitive abilities allow us to endanger ourselves in order to protect others. This has an obvious genetic benefit in the case of a parent protecting a child - the parent is protecting it's genetic replicant - and perhaps simply spills over into the need to protect our community/tribe/brothers for the same reason. By protecting the tribe, we protect our siblings and thus our own DNA.

....back to fruit trees...that they flourish as result of their fruits being eaten, and their seeds spread far, and wide suggests that the purpose of a fruit tree is revealed through its function, sharing its fruit for all who benefit from its seasonal harvest....definitely, evidencing purpose revealed in its function as a provider of food.

I think we are arguing semantics. In my mind, a tree has no purpose other than to live and produce offspring. Any other purpose it has is actually a projection from those around it who benefit from the function of growing fruit.

 

[bankside]

I don't think a fruit tree has a purpose. I think a fruit tree that doesn't produce viable seeds will die out, while one that can will become a more numerous strain. There is no "go forth and multiply" commandment; it is simply the case that those which did left offspring with the propensity to do so too, while those which did not have died out. Occasional, entirely random and non-purposive genetic transcription errors give rise to lines with a variable capacity for continuation.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think we are arguing semantics. In my mind, a tree has no purpose other than to live and produce offspring. Any other purpose it has is actually a projection from those around it who benefit from the function of growing fruit.

To the grass around it, the fruit tree's purpose could be said to be to provide shade. To birds in the area, its purpose could be to provide a perch among whose branches they can have refuge from raptors. To epiphytes such as moss and fungus, its purpose could be to provide a welcoming surface for growth.

Purpose depends on point of view. But to assume purpose means to assume planning and a goal; otherwise it's merely function.

Most discussions of purpose seem to be anthropocentric. That's a bad flaw whether from a scientific or a theological point of view.

 

[kallipolis]

But Dawkins does not say this. He very specifically, and repeatedly, recognises that our evolved complexity supersedes our genetic imperative to protect our personal DNA. As I said above, our cognitive abilities allow us to endanger ourselves in order to protect others. This has an obvious genetic benefit in the case of a parent protecting a child - the parent is protecting it's genetic replicant - and perhaps simply spills over into the need to protect our community/tribe/brothers for the same reason. By protecting the tribe, we protect our siblings and thus our own DNA.

I think we are arguing semantics. In my mind, a tree has no purpose other than to live and produce offspring. Any other purpose it has is actually a projection from those around it who benefit from the function of growing fruit.

Richard Dawkins attempts to side step the matter of selective altruistic behaviour in human life by resorting to vague, pseudo-scientific theorising..I quote your words, paraphrasing Dawkins "that our evolved complexity supersedes our genetic imperative to protect our personal DNA" that may well impress his followers does not directly address the matter of altruistic behaviour being a choice rather, than the result of DNA programming...for to prove his point Dawkins would need to explain why altruistic behaviour is a minority pursuit among human beings....are we to assume that only those who are sufficiently evolved demonstrate altruistic behaviour...this leads onto another topic...that only those with advanced intelligence can demonstrate altruistic behaviour....?

Those who benefit from eating fruit from an apple tree may well deduce that the apple tree's purpose is made obvious when its fruit is eaten by those who appreciate the apple tree's purposeful existence....feeding people, and animals...

 

[kallipolis]

I don't think a fruit tree has a purpose. I think a fruit tree that doesn't produce viable seeds will die out, while one that can will become a more numerous strain. There is no "go forth and multiply" commandment; it is simply the case that those which did left offspring with the propensity to do so too, while those which did not have died out. Occasional, entirely random and non-purposive genetic transcription errors give rise to lines with a variable capacity for continuation.

If a fruit tree serves no purpose, beyond its existence as a tree growing fruit, and spreading its seeds should we then deduce that human life has no purpose beyond pro-creating to ensure the survival of its DNA?

In my opinion there is a purpose to everything, including the fruit tree...for to ignore the benefit that a fruit tree shares with those who eat its fruit is to blind oneself to its beneficial life, feeding people, and animals.

 

[kallipolis]

To the grass around it, the fruit tree's purpose could be said to be to provide shade. To birds in the area, its purpose could be to provide a perch among whose branches they can have refuge from raptors. To epiphytes such as moss and fungus, its purpose could be to provide a welcoming surface for growth.

Purpose depends on point of view. But to assume purpose means to assume planning and a goal; otherwise it's merely function.

Most discussions of purpose seem to be anthropocentric. That's a bad flaw whether from a scientific or a theological point of view.

That you have demonstrated that the fruit serves a purpose, through its function indicates that a fruit tree's purpose, is beneficial to those who recognise the tree's benefits by eating its fruit, and/or seeking shelter under/on its branches....leading me to understand that the purposeful life of the fruit tree is no mere random accident.....

 

[Kulindahr]

That you have demonstrated that the fruit serves a purpose, through its function indicates that a fruit tree's purpose, is beneficial to those who recognise the tree's benefits by eating its fruit, and/or seeking shelter under/on its branches....leading me to understand that the purposeful life of the fruit tree is no mere random accident.....

But there is no way by observation to tell what its purpose is -- that's all subjective and dependent on point of view.

 

[kallipolis]

^Purpose is always apparent to the observer when the fruit tree feeds those who benefit from its fruit.

 

[mightbe]

You have yet to establish a purpose for the fruit tree, other than another's noting that the only observable purpose of life is reproduction.

If purpose is to be dependent on the observer, then it's really not an inherent quality. A fruit tree has many functions, but it's only 'purpose' (defined loosely as 'goal') is replication.

 

[bankside]

If a fruit tree serves no purpose, beyond its existence as a tree growing fruit, and spreading its seeds should we then deduce that human life has no purpose beyond pro-creating to ensure the survival of its DNA?

It doesn't even have a purpose to procreate or ensure the survival of its DNA. Purpose is no part of it. If you have a set of things with a mixed and variable capacity for self-replication, and if that capacity is roughly constant when passed on at the time of any individual replication, the average offspring will tend to become better self-replicators in each successive generation. (Unless that results in the emergence of some other constraint, in which case more modest self-replicators might become more numerous as the hyper-replicator population collapses in view of the constraint.)

In my opinion there is a purpose to everything, including the fruit tree...for to ignore the benefit that a fruit tree shares with those who eat its fruit is to blind oneself to its beneficial life, feeding people, and animals.

It's quite possible to be more pragmatic about the whole thing and not quite so dramatic about "blinding oneself" by simply noting that it can be adaptive to eat fruit.