Does Evolution have a point?

I am not trying to be trite. True Natural selection helps decides who survies and who doesn't.But does the machinery of Evolution itself have a point.
Some evolutionists would say no.In thinking on this, I began to wonder if this was the real underpinning of why Creationists reject evolution.At least in the Creationist theory, creation itself has bouth a definate source and ultimate purpose in God's devine plan.Thoughts..?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yes, it might.Will Provine pointed to Phil Johnson that biolgists DID NOT KNOW the limits of selection. If artifical selection enables suitably fast approaches to the local equilibria denoted
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/ttbe/ttbe.htm
below

quote:

---

Biology Bulletin. Vol. 22, No. 1. 1995. pp. 1 - 9. Transated from Izvestiya AN. Seriya Biologicheskaya. No. 1. 1995. pp. 5 -14. Original Russian Text Copyright by Gladyshev.

​

THEORETICAL BIOLOGY

​

Thermodynamic Trends in Biological Evolution

​

G. P. Gladyshev

​

Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Kosygina 4, Moscow, 117977 Russia. Received September 27,19

​

The model also implies that the formation of supramolecular structures of different types is determined, as is that of the structures of higher hierarchical orders, by thermodynamic factors alone. This is proved by the fact that the energetics of supramolecular interactions is commensurate in scope with kBT (kB - Boltzmann constant, T - temperature), and local equilibriums are established relatively quickly. The thermostat parameters are temperature (T): pressure (p); chemical composition ; tension of electric, magnetic fields, etc.).

---

The the inversion of the strong inequality following a structure of evolution theory that is heirarchical (not genic selectionist and rejecting memes) below

quote:

---

Differential equations of macrothermodynamics.
The systems and the processes
As a rule, modern thermodynamics studies simple or complex systems with similar processes taking place in a single fixed time scale. (Usually, the processes are localized in one or several hierarchies.) However, the processes in real systems usually imply complicated transformations involving structures of various hierarchies and relating to different time scales.

---

quote:

---

For a complex hierarchic, say, ecological, system, contributions of different terms in (4)-(9) are determined by the choice of the time scale and the parameters i,k. For instance, for a real system where higher evolution take place involving rather large structures (organisms and so on), the contribution of the terms TidSi, pidVi and some others, is extremely small. However, the values and can be rather large in this case. Indeed, in the case of small particles the energy of thermal motion kBT>>En. (En is the energy of natural magnetic, electric, and gravity fields acting on the particle.) Still, for sufficiently large structures the inverse is valid: En >>kBT. Hence, the relative contribution of the corresponding terms is large.

---

could facilitate a human design of biomass productivity increases such that natural selection could indeed have the point you asked about through a change in agriculture (dominionisms).

This is, indeed, one of the reasons given by creationists for their rejection of the theory of evolution -- that if evolution were true then there would be no morality nor a reason for living. I don't even agree that this linkage is true, and I would assume that the evangelical Christians who do accept the theory of evolution agree with me, but I guess it is part of the reason for their rejection.Another reason for their rejection is that they cannot conceive how the sacrifice of Christ could be necessary without a literal, historical fall. Again, even though I am not a Christian I can reconcile the two quite easily. But then, this is what they say, so it must be important to them.Me, I think that what is really important to them is the Old Testament morality that they preach, and the only way they can really justify it is to accept a literal Old Testament, along with all of the other literal baggage that comes with it.What might also be important to the literalists is their particular "literal" reading of Revelations and their need to convince themselves that in the end, no matter what, all will end well.

yes, the fundamental advancement of life, as well as more or less insuring its continual survival (within bounds).do you mean, is evolution directed? well, it CAN be. there is such a thing as artificial selection. maybe god uses "supernatural selection."

---

אָרַח

Evolution is a mindless process. Of course it has no "point."That's why people don't like it.What this means is that an individual has no point, except a point they make up. But of course since all is physical,they made it up due to their physical characteristics.

Max: Arachnophilia, then we agree. The point, the plan of evolution is the advancement of life. The better the vehicle for life is produced the better its chances for survival and thus for supremacy. We have produced literature, philosophy, music, medicine, cultures and civilizaton....we have also created reruns and war (for idealogy and religion).This message has been edited by Max, 07-10-2005 10:45 PMThis message has been edited by Max, 07-10-2005 10:48 PM

There is no plan.

I don't think that there is a plan behind evolution, even if that plan includes the advancement of life. Individuals who try to protect their offspring and their own lives may be more likely to reproduce, however, so the continuation of life is a byproduct of natural selection.If by advancement of life, you mean that modern animals, for example, are somehow "better" or more sophisticated than the animals of the past, this isn't really true either. Life adapts to the environments it finds itself in, so everything evolves in a way that adapts species to their surroundings. This doesn't really mean that greater complexity is always selected for. There are many birds who have lost the ability to fly, for example.

There's no need to wonder. They'll come right out and tell you - the non-telological nature of evolution, and the nihilism they believe is the direct result, is their main objection to the promulgation of the theory to children.

I think that that brings up an interesting question. Would Creationists still worship a god which did things randomly, with no goal or reason behind his actions? What is the Christian God's purpose in creating the universe?

that would require god to not be omniscient. omniscience kind of bonkers randomness and not having goals. but other than that, uh, i guess so.

---

אָרַח

Unless of course your god is kind of bonkers.TTFN,WK

good point.

---

אָרַח

Evolution does not have a point (is not directed) but neither is it random. It is a process controlled by the natural environment which includes biotic and abiotic components. Certain mutations will doom or favor and individual, not because evolution is directed but because the phenotype is either more favored in that environment or less favored in that environment.