Does evolution have a purpose?

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:42 am

cbilljones wrote:

altezon wrote:

Baskt_Case wrote:

Sure... survival of a species.
Grossly simple and humorous analogy I made for my wife one day while driving. While she was at the wheel we hit and killed a small rabbit. Sadly she asked me why did something like that have to happen. I replied...
Stupid rabbit ran out in the road.
Stupid rabbit got hit.
Stupid rabbit cant spawn more stupid rabbits.

Or it may have been a smart rabbit having a bad day who can't spawn any more smart rabbits.

Probabilities would suggests more less intelligent rabbits would get hit by cars than then smarter ones.

That's an assumed probability. Smart rabbits might be no better at avoiding traffic than stupid ones. The rabbit genome may have no solution at all for exposure to certain dangers.

Disconnected wrote:

cbilljones wrote:

Probabilities would suggests more less intelligent rabbits would get hit by cars than then smarter ones.

Doesn't that necessitate some screwy assumptions?
I mean.. Obviously the rabbits most likely to be run over, are the ones who live in areas with heavy traffic. The more cars and rabbits cross the same path, the more likely they are to intersect, right?
Now if it's a valid assumption that rabbit populations with a high frequency of death by tire breed for intelligence, doesn't it then follow that the smartest rabbits - barring the odd throwback - are always the ones most likely to get run over?

Yep, given your assumption.

edit:

I sometimes find a raccoon carcass on the shoulder of the road, where the gore pattern clearly shows it was run over where it lay rather than hit in the road and then moved to the side. Here's my interpretation of this information:

1. Animal was smart enough to wait by the side of the road for traffic to clear before crossing.

2. Driver crossed over onto the shoulder and ran it down.

3. Stupid driver lived to spawn other stupid drivers.

another point:

Our planet isn't graced with any remaining trilobites, triceratops or mastadons who were smarter than their fellows.

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:44 pm

I guess the only way to be sure would be to do a proper study, have it published and scrutinised by our peers, i was merely hypothesising Wink

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:59 am

neterer wrote:

Another big question

its not that big of a question,we allready have,from the start of time,by that,i mean,look at the first time of man ! then look at it now. Smile

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:43 am

I subscribe to the Douglas Adams theory of evolution - inevitable once the monkeys started banging rocks together.

My personal evolution contacted me just the other day to say it had thrown its hands up in disgust and was moving on...

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:23 am

personally my opinion is back in the day it came down to survival of the fittest, Those better adapted to the surrounding or habitat thrived, out numbering those with weaker genes as time passed. But since we become medically smarter, and able to treat what would be classed as a "weaker gene. I do not feel evolution, a natural process is as much responsible for changes in species we see today, apart from creatures that have adapted to the invasion we have forced upon habitats. Instead at least with the human race it is mostly man made substances, violence or issues that can be routed back to greed, that cause the death of others, and not natural selection, as we have the knowledge to cure most illnesses.

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:04 pm

neterer wrote:

yes, but does the fact that evolution is real gives it a purpose?
if the universe is random, then life is a series of reactions that follow random laws. Or a perpose was self-created as a need of matter?
I think that a random universe self-evolved to a universe with a perpose, but how a random universe,could create its perpose? And if evolution has a perpose and life follow it, then why does that perpose include sufferning?

G,

purpose can also mean "the purpose of survival". the organic shell most animals have adjust through time to a more suitable. and are cause of it better prepared against predators. or a better predator cause of it. it doesn't have to mean something unexplained. this is a question about how you as a person interpret it. how you think about things.

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:06 pm

I am pretty sure this sentiment has already been expressed here. But this poll was so irksome I felt compelled to respond.

The poll question is just so obviously flawed. It's akin to asking if climate change feels good about itself. This question personifies a process - evolution - with an experience only possible to humans/sentient beings - having a sense of purpose. How can an idea or natural process have purpose in and of itself? That's getting into some pretty funky ontological territory (eg is the universe sentient? Are we holograms? etc) and I don't think that's what the asker intended. Blerg.

So I wonder - are there religious undertones to this poll? One way it sort of makes sense as a question is if we presuppose there is an omnipotent deity and evolution is a part of it's master plan. But linguistically the question would still fall short. Double blerg.

Of course I am likely guilty of logical and linguistic flaws even within this post, but what is the internet if not an opportunity to feel momentarily superior.

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:17 am

.....Hmm one of the biggies eh? evolution is a physical process thus has no purpose of its own...perhaps a higher being might use evolution to iterate all possible combinations for its own amusement, out of boredom.
..the process of evolution is like dirty laundry... throw it at the wall and what sticks is the order for the day. all things change so when the nature of the wall changes and wool socks in mud no longer stick, then the cotton briefs are a contingency and when they stick they become the most populous adornment of the nasty wall...its all very close to trial and error but with progression as one outcome limits the range of future outcomes. those species that persist over time and incidences make the bulk of the outcomes.
and the driving force is differential reproductive success...if you can have grandchildren to a greater extent than others, then you are a evolutionary success, and a competitive force, for the time being until the world changes in a way that knocks you out of the betting pool.

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:47 pm

LORD! GARTH! wrote:

.....Hmm one of the biggies eh? evolution is a physical process thus has no purpose of its own...

How so? To me without evolution we potentially would be apes... the modern human would not exist. We would not have the technology (you love so much) that we have today

perhaps a higher being might use evolution to iterate all possible combinations for its own amusement, out of boredom.

Could be but again Science has proven that there is a scientific process involved with evolution and that there has been evolution witin the human species itself. Even the evolution of how mankind reacts to infections/virus has evolved over time as evidenced by even as short as 300 years where fewer people are dying from simple illness such as the flu. Granted the advances in medical science has helped aid in this achievement but still humans of today are much better equipped to fight off infections imo. I also believe that a more educated population has aided in advancing evolution of the species because we as a population can make better more informed choices helping propell the population into a longer longevity and quality of life ensuring most of the time that future generaltions will surpass the generations of today to become that much more stronger or equipped to survive.

..the process of evolution is like dirty laundry... throw it at the wall and what sticks is the order for the day. all things change so when the nature of the wall changes and wool socks in mud no longer stick, then the cotton briefs are a contingency and when they stick they become the most populous adornment of the nasty wall...its all very close to trial and error but with progression as one outcome limits the range of future outcomes. those species that persist over time and incidences make the bulk of the outcomes.

This is confusing me.... I am not sure of your correlation between evolution and dirty laundry. How does the putrid wall or wall sticking laundry relate to survival of the species?

and the driving force is differential reproductive success...if you can have grandchildren to a greater extent than others, then you are a evolutionary success, and a competitive force, for the time being until the world changes in a way that knocks you out of the betting pool.

How does having grandchildren or even children for that matter make you an evolutionary success? Any male or female species can reproduce but to be successful in evolution would you not be required to nurture and raise the children to be smarter and more adaptable to evolution itself? Not to sound sexist but any man with help of a female can produce offspring but raising and guiding said offspring would promote advancement of evolution. That to me would be more of a definite way to calculate success in evolution or to be a force in producing future generations. This would be a more viable prediction that the future generations would be equipped and able to deal/cope with what is thrown at them. This is all just theoretical though as my crystal ball stopped working ages ago so in actuality the future is what we of today and tommarrow make of it and the choices that we as a population make. Smile

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:05 pm

I have always looked at evolution as a process whereby a species needs to evolve to survive. In many respects it holds true but looking at diversity of nature within similar animal groups it is apparent that adaptation is equally as important as evolving into a next phase.
If I look at humanity the last few thousand years there does not seem to be any apparent changes in our physical status other than body mass.
Europe is an easy area to see physical change and data of body height is easy to access. Any building of say 200 years or older doorways are just too low for the average person these days.
However this is more the result of diet. Easily seen by data about japanese people that pre ww2 were basically rice fish and low carb diet. They also lived somewhat longer and were in general smaller. In todays society of Japan the life span has reduced whilst body stature is taller. The Japanese dietary habits are in this arena the main factor. Higher carb intakes more fried food and higher usage of dairy products.
Again the aspect of an evolutionary process imo cannot be looked at any longer as merely a method of evolving to survive.
In todays modern society peoples ability to learn may not have become significantly improved but the methods of allowing higher numbers of any society to learn and share knowledge has increased at a rate that only 100 years ago would have seemed impossible.
Humanity has indeed evolved. It has arrived at a point where people together can solve issues and through cooperation achieve results that benefit the society or communal group.
We are no longer isolated cave dwellers or tribal communities perpetually at war with each other. In history much of our conflict was merely resources....not enough food or women or labour. We would subjugate others to meet our demands. In this aspect I believe that evolution for mankind has reached a significant point.
History tells how in the winter months some communities would sometimes be forced to remove elderly crippled and infirm as there were not the resources for the entire community to survive. Today we have someone as Stephen Hawking one of present day mans greatest minds. 100 years ago he may well have been disposed of purely as a matter of group survival.
The question of wether this be evolution is of course argumental. However as we have come to shape our society through knowledge and cooperation then it stands to reason that our ability to work together is a fundamental aspect of survival. If we have learned how to survive as a group through participation then the need to evolve or adapt physically is greatly reduced.
The question of does evolution have a purpose......I don't think so in the respect that evolution is not aware. I would personally regard it more the result of needing to change / evolve to survive.
As mankind has arrived at a point of consciousness where we realise that working together we can survive with relative ease the need for a physical selves to adapt change or follow some evolutionary pattern is on hold.
A previous poster said how we have become bigger better stronger I will finish with something that would imply physical devolution....just to be stubborn. Smile

The earliest longbow known from England, was found at Ashcott Heath in Somerset and is dated to 2665 BC

Quote from the wiki regarding the longbow.

Quote:

The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[10] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.

A modern longbow's draw is typically 60 lbf (270 N) or less, and by modern convention measured at 28 inches (71.1 cm). Historically, hunting bows usually had draw weights of 50–60 lbf (220–270 N), which is enough for all but the very largest game and which most reasonably fit adults can manage with practice. Today, there are few modern longbowmen capable of using 180–185 lbf (800–820 N) bows accurately.[11][12]

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:35 am

We have become weaker and more gullible, we use machines for everything, cant pick up something too heavy in case OH&S sees you, cant even punch someone in the head these days without fear of them falling over and hitting their heads. Where once we believed in God (s) and spirits, something most people now mock, we now believe in Apple and Samsung, 400 years ago if your crop failed you prayed to your god pleading how you had offended him, now if your dumb phone drops out you panic, "oh mighty network how I have I offended thee", said with the same panic as when your crop failed and half the village starved to death including your wife and eight of your kids, now its "I can't Instagram what ever shall I do"

Ive read somewhere that man for his first time in history is evolving backwards, I tend to agree.

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:05 am

trollster wrote:

Ive read somewhere that man for his first time in history is evolving backwards, I tend to agree.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever, evolution does not have a direction, it is a natural process were traits more suited to their environment tend to gradually take over. This has been well understood for over 150 years, why is there still confusion about the basic mechanics of natural selection?

As to the poll there is a simple right or wrong answer, and the answer is no.

kinda sad that at this point 88% of the respondents failed.

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:20 am

cbilljones wrote:

This statement makes no sense whatsoever, evolution does not have a direction, it is a natural process were traits more suited to their environment tend to gradually take over.

Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that a species can change into a more "primitive" form over time

You have to stop taking what I write literally

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:58 am

Does evolution have a purpose??

Yep of course it does, the purpose is to evolve......

mmmm I like smarties

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:14 am

Devolution can refer to changes that occur from a problem or circumstance no longer existing.
Many species of animal which live in total darkness have eyes that no longer work instead of no eyes at all. As there is no light the deterioration of the optic nerve occurs over time. The eyes still exist but never function. This is a form of devolution but evolution has determined that eyes are for the most part needed. Easier for an animal species that gains access to light to allow the eyes to regenerate rather than to evolve new ones.
Evolution through gene duplication still allows for a species to produce radical changes in its physical make up and not just left to successive slight modifications over generations.
So whilst a species may have evolved to a point of perfection within a given environment the duplication of the genes will maintain that level of evolution but allow a species to devolve and change to adapt to new circumstances. This of course applies also to humans especially when we look to how we have changed our status from hunter gatherer to modern society and all of its add ons/benefits.