Does Evolution Have An Objective?

I think it is a rather obvious and simple answer. It is important to us. We are, afterall, viewing the universe through a human lens. It is true that the Universe is probably indifferent to the existence of our consciousness. However, we tend to focus on those things that are important to us, and I really don't see anything inherently wrong with that.This bias is also seen within biology. Linnaeus was unashamedly biased towards humans, and his classifications stuck. For example, we are Therians (which includes all mammals). This term means "crown". Linnaeus viewed the mammal group as the crown of creation. We are also Eutherians, which means the TRUE crown group. We are also Primates which means that we are the first and most important group. On and on it goes.Linnaeus is not alone. How often do we actually admit that the vast majority of life on Earth is unicellular? How often do we realize that there are more species in one family of insects (e.g. beetles) than there are species of mammals? When we think of biology as a science what do we think of first? Warm, fuzzy mammals or a species of specialized archae found only in a single geothermal vent?Humans also have a bias towards purpose. Events that we now comfortably attribute to natural mechanisms were once the domain of the gods. Poseidon was responsible not only for ocean storms but earthquakes as well. The gods were seen as participants in the natural world, holding the fates of men in their hands. We may scoff at the idea of Poseidon shaking the Earth and producing a tsunami with a swipe of his hand, but how far away is this idea from the idea that some entity was turning the knobs of evolution to produce us? We inherently see a hidden purpose for random events. This bias should be acknowledged as well.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

As long as we recognize our biases for what they are I don't see a problem with it. Scientists anthropomorphize nature all of the time, even to the point of phrasing things in a teleological manner. However, it is meant as more of a literary device than an accurate portrayal of nature. For example, a physicist may say that light wants to travel the shortest distance between two points. Of course, light has no wants or needs, nor does it have the foresight to map out a path. We understand this as saying that the laws of nature make it so that light travels the shortest distance between two points.

Your gravity analogy works well here. Gravity does have a direction: downward. We can observe this by looking at how river flows, which is always downward. One of the results of water flowing downhill is the Grand Canyon. However, the Grand Canyon was not the objective of gravity, only a result of its direction and starting conditions. Or as you stated, shit happens.For evolution, that direction is higher fitness. Species are pushed towards higher fitness through natural selection just like water is pushed downhill by gravity. The results of this direction can be quite different, and they are. However, none of the evolutionary changes that we observe was the objective of evolution.

People take this stuff way too seriously. A rollercoaster may have a predetermined path, but they sure are fun. A book may have a predetermined ending, but the story is still entertaining. If the universe is deterministic then we wouldn't be able to tell, so why not enjoy the ride?

This is most certainly the case for many mutations, if not all. One of the best examples is mutations caused by radiation, and more specifically high energy photons (e.g. UV radiation). The double slit experiment is one of the classic QM experiments, and these same photons with wave probabilities are causing mutations.Even at the level of DNA replication there are quantum effects. For example, in this paper the authors describe how mutations are due to a loose fit between free nucleotides and the active site of polymerases (enzymes that replicate DNA). They describe the results in probabilities, the same as you would for any quantum or thermodynamic event.There are also larger molecular interactions that would probably not be described in terms of QM. For example, the insertion of transposons occurs between very large macromolecules. However, these events are again only describable in terms of probability. The same transposon will insert in many different places, even in genetically identical organisms in the exact same environment. I know this from my personal experience with random transposon mutagenesis in bacteria.With evolution, we are looking at a system that is very, very susceptible to the "Butterfly Effect". Small changes in the beginning conditions can produce very large changes in the results. Something as simple as a low pressure system moving 10 miles south instead of north can result in a hurricane. This hurricane can result in flooding in a specific lake system causing large standing areas of stagnant water. Within these stagnant pools you can have algal blooms that would have otherwise not occured. This increase in algae allows for a massive increase in genetic diversity that would have otherwise not occurred, possibly resulting in an algae population that is capable of producing a new neurotoxin that would have otherwise not existed if that low pressure system had moved north 10 miles instead of south. . . just as one example.