Does Evolution have a point?

evolution need not have a mind to be a process with a point. lots of stuff has a point. biological organisms do certain things to ensure their own survival, and the survival of their children and species -- and evolution is one of those things.in that respect it very much has a point. without it, life would not have lasted very long.

---

אָרַח

i'm not sure evolution has a set end-result. if you believe in god, maybe god had a goal in mind and directed outcomes. or maybe god just knows every result from the very beginning, and so everything is in essence planned.evolution may be the watchmaker, but it is the blind watchmaker.

---

אָרַח

I would say that the 'point' of evolution is the survival of the species, or life itself, in general. Without evolution, environmental changes would surely and quickly destroy life.I don't think the 'point' is the advancement of life because if the environment prefered a less-advanced version, then, naturally, it would be selected for.

This raises an interesting question. Does God have a point, except for the point God makes up?If humans are "in the image of God" then does this makes sense it's the same for us?lfen

If such a being had only a subjective point, he would be nothing more than a super-human figure. I read this novel once in which God was portrayed as creating the universe and people as a game. No point, just entertainment. Something to do.I suppose that passage about being made in His image means something like being endowed with reason and a conscience. Our morality is his morality. 2+2=4 for Him and for us. I think it is meant as in contrast to animals, but I'm not sure.

"biological organisms do certain things to ensure their own survival"No, they don't. Biological organisms survive because they do certain things or because they have certain traits. Big difference.

my whole point was basically phrased backwards.

I would agree evolution in itself does not seem to have any "purpose". It's not teleological in nature.But obviously it is preferred by some people over teleological (religious) explanations for other reasons apart from just the fact that it is "scientific". So in that respect it can "have a point" assigned to it. I'm one of those people and what I like about it is that it concentrates on an explanation 'from within' instead of 'from outside'. Or if you want 'bottom up' instead of 'top down'. That makes it much more elegant IMO, in that it minimizes assumptions.

deerbreh:

quote:

---

"biological organisms do certain things to ensure their own survival"

​

No, they don't. Biological organisms survive because they do certain things or because they have certain traits. Big difference.

---

Do you think we are an at least partial exception? We do reason, imagine, plan, etc., to improve our own (individual and group) chances of survival with that specific purpose in mind.There is a prerequisite constellation of traits, of course, but we can do this well or poorly, or even choose to abandon the effort.

Dear deerbreh:I am truly interested in your reply. I could write the reply from philosophical materialism myself, but I suspect your answer will contain elements unexpected by me.Sentience complicated the equation; technology ties it in knots.As we reach for our own genetic controls, it seems to me that all bets are off. I'm not sure the materialistic philosophical replies to the question remain valid: not decided, just not sure.I would be grateful if you help me explore the question.

We often hear, on the news, that there is an obesity problem which threatens our health and longevity. Yet most people find it very difficult to maintain a diet that would help them control their weight. It seems that our biological drives can overwhelm our reason.Our inaction, in the face of the threat of global warming, suggests that we aren't all that good at planning at the group level, either. Our government is currently run on principles which seem to be "let's not plan, the market will take care of itself."Undoubtedly we do some planning. But much of our behavior is determined by factors that do not appear to be a result of planning.

nwr:

quote:

---

Undoubtedly we do some planning. But much of our behavior is determined by factors that do not appear to be a result of planning.

---

But there are individuals and groups working mightily to combat insane diets, both global and individual.We eat as though fat were rare; we consume as though the earth were infinite and immune to our insults: agreed.But my query concerns an absolute determinism.

I'm not a hard determinist. Whether or not evolution has a point depends a lot on what you mean by "has a point."

I am raising a query in the context of deerbreh's remarks:

quote:

---

"biological organisms do certain things to ensure their own survival"

---

deerbreh:

quote:

---

No, they don't. Biological organisms survive because they do certain things or because they have certain traits. Big difference.

---

It is a very big difference. I think the philosohpical ground shifted with our order of intelligence, and positively quaked with genetic manipulation.

Let's explore the first of those: "biological organisms do certain things to ensure their own survival." But let's consider a specific example: That could mean "birds are capable of thinking, and they thoughtfully decide to eat, so that they will survive." That's clearly wrong for birds. The equivalent for people is mostly wrong too, but there are times when people will force-feed themselves even though they have no appetite. On balance, I would say it is wrong for people.It could also mean "birds eat because of a biological drive, and that biological drive evolved to ensure their survival". This uses a kind of teleological language that biologists are particularly concerned to avoid. They instead might say "selective pressures favored a biological drive to eat". For this particular meaning, there isn't any important difference between people and birds.I guess deerbreh will have to tell us which of those he was referring to. For the first meaning, where we are concerned with purposes people might have for their actions, it shifted a little. But those biological drives are still pretty strong, and they often overwhelm reasoned consideration. For the second meaning, where the purpose is ascribed to evolution, I don't think there is any shift at all.I'm not convinced that genetic manipulation is particularly significant here. It's effect is mostly pretty small, in comparison to natural genetic change.