Sancho Panza

With your grasp of scientific method I think you should consider an art major but then that's just one man's opinion. Sancho Panza

Excuse me I made an error YOU DID NOT INSINUATE THAT YOU HAD A DEGREE IN SCIENCE. In post 117 you actually state you have one but for some reason you don't say from where. Do they have an injunction? Please forgive my error. Sancho Panza

Fred, didn't you insinuate that you held some type of degree in science? Most kids learn scientific method to facilitate their 5th grade science project. Scientific Method. 1.State the problem 2.Make Observations 3.Form a Hypothesis 4.Do the Experiment 5. Draw a conclusion The problem here is that you continue to alter the variables when it comes to stating the problem (asking your question) . Either by intent or folly your constant playing with the variables confounds addressing your question by using the scientific method. Here is a link that will explain scientific method to you at an elementary school level http://www.brandonbeltz.com/scimeth/index.htm By the way Tabernarius is latin for bartender, sciens is latin for understanding and sumer refers to sumeria. if the rest of that gibberish you wrote is supposed to be latin there are no such latin words to translate. I am beginning entertain the notion that the signal noise you are experiencing may be caused by a thin barrier constructed out of a ductile material with the atomic number of 13 that you are using to line your galea Sancho Panza coito ergo sum

Fred, You bounce like the shocks on a fifty dollar Buick. You start by asking the question, " Does Life have purpose?" and when someone offers an answer you bounce the question to "What is the purpose of life?" when someone answers that question you again bounce the question to "What is the purpose of evolution?". Then your question becomes all about genetics, then process, then function, then result. Bouncey, bouncey, bounce and all of a sudden you're talking about screwdrivers and reducing the noise in the channel when you are the source of the noise. You must either be waiting for someone to tell you what you want to hear or you just enjoy changing the rules to keep the argument going. Wait there is a third possibility maybe, just maybe, you don't know how to ask the question you really want answered. p.s. Tabernarius modi sciens instrumenti, paret aptissimu sumer doesn't really translate unless it refers to a Sumerian Bartender. Check your spelling and conjugation Sancho Panza

One would think that a "Science" degree would be more conducive to linear thinking and the construction of supportable arguments. Maybe you should consider pursuing your doctorate at a different institution. I've heard MIT is pretty good.

Ah Fred I may detect a glimmer of light. Your comment "So their "apparent purpose" in producing progeny -reproducing- is driven by nothing more complex than "that's how it works"?" is beginning to close with my post #71 Philosophy aside, if lifes only purpose is to perpetuate itself then it has attained all of the justification it needs. You still lack a working knowledge of how evolution works, but you are getting there. Sancho Panza

Fred, where you make your big error is in your assumption that evolution is a purposeful process when your only supporting argument is the end result. You cannot support the argument that: if evolution produces efficiency then the purpose of evolution is efficiency. That's a bit like saying the purpose of forest fires caused by lightening is to burn down houses. Certainly forest fires burn down houses but the random lightening strike has no purpose other than the release of energy. The fact that houses are burned during the process is just coincidental. Three mechanisms add new alleles to the gene pool: mutation, recombination and gene flow. Two mechanisms remove alleles, genetic drift and natural selection. Genetic Drift removes alleles randomly from the gene pool. Natural Selection removes deleterious alleles from the gene pool. The amount of genetic variation or evolution found in a population is the balance between the actions of these 5 mechanisms. In order to argue that evolution is purposeful you will have to establish a nexus of all five processes that moves directionally from the less evolved to the more evolved. Since, at the very least, mutation and drift are random, by definition, no such nexus can exist. Even if you try to argue that the only genetic changes that improve an organism count as evolution your argument will fail when it gets to causation. In regard to your comment that " organisms that can exploit their environment in multiple ways are better adapted than ones who have evolved only a single method" seems to make an unsupported assumption that the successful organisms have "evolved" when it it also just as likely that the organisms you refer to as "adapted" existed in the population all along and only became discernable due to the failure of the less successful organisms in the population. In other words you are presuming that evolution has occurred when you can't point to when and where the population diverged, or even establish that any change has occurred. Most evolutionary biologists would agree that for every successful "evolution" or change there are many failures which would mean that even if evoultion was purposeful (which it isn't) it isn't very efficient.

Fred, Regressive evolution is the reduction or disappearance of a trait over time. To return to the cave fish analogy, this articular fish evolved eyes and the abiity to see, then as it adapted to it's dark cave environment it lost it's ability to see even though it retaied it's eyes. That is What, on (God's good) Earth is "regressive evolution" To a simpleton it might seem like evolution going backwards but that is a poor description of what occurs. If you think I just made the term up, google it, but IF you get a wiki don't stop there. The bad thing about wiki is that I, who have never held a surgical laser can publish a wiki describing the surgery and if I use enough big words and convoluted thought, it might even be quoted as the "current thinking" on the subject.

Thank you for providing the best possible example of you own failure. The reason that the response should be a simple "yes or no" or begin with "The purpose of life is" lies in the above quote. A reader has no clue to your opinion in response to your own question until the second half of the first sentence of the FIFTH paragraph and even then it is a vague allusion that dies unsupported while you continue your rambling proselytization regarding what I choose to term "Fred's Theory of Evolution". By the way I don't think you can prove to ANYONE that the purpose of evolution is to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, at exploiting available resources, or gathering and accumulating information because your theory only acknowledges constructive evolution and fails to allow for regressive evolution. It also appears that you may be operating from a dictionary definition of evolution. I have yet to read the work of any evolutionary biologist willing to make a similar statement. But since you want to talk about evolution and life as if they were the same thing, consider this. Evolution is a chance process and, in the biological sense, only refers to a heritable change. When evolution occurs it may be advantageous, detrimental or inconsequential to the survival of the evolving organism. Advantageous evolution has an abundance of examples because it does lead to a more efficient or adaptable organism. Detrimental evolution is harder to find because the process of natural selection removes the examples. Examples of inconsequential evolution are available if one looks for them. For instance Polar bears evolved with a black nose. It is certainly arguable that the polar bear would be better camouflaged if it's nose were white like its fur but the hunting ability of the polar bear and the learned behavior covering it's nose while stalking has made the color of his nose inconsequential. Another example of inconsequential evolution would be the sightless eyes of cave dwelling fish. The evolutionary loss of sight does nothing to improve it's survivability or efficiency, yet it regressively evolved from having sight to blindness even though sight is inconsequential to it's environment.

Fred, you obviously fail to grasp the difference between poorly worded and poorly asked. If you ask a direct question such as "Does life have purpose?" then it must answered either with a simple "yes" or "no" or begin with "The Purpose of life is:" If you wish to confine the responses to questions of philosophy, mathmatics, evolution, or chemistry then you should narrow the question to identify the context of the response you seek. If you wish to include all possible points of view then you should state that as part of your question. The ability to establish response parameters insures that the answers you receive are responive to the intent of your question. Failure to do so is like trying to play chess without a board or piece movemenet rules. Leaving your question overly broad seems to allow you to play the answer game. if someone answers that the purpose of life is to grow in awareness and have fun with being alive then you want to apply evolution. If someone answers that life is about perpetuating itself then you responds with something like "why do we play?" Every answer, response to an answer or partial explanation you have offered so far has begun at some point beyond the answer to the question you have asked and appears based on an unstated or assumptive conclusion. You are obviously not seeking an answer, you are seeking an argument. And by the way relying in "wiki" for facts is a bit like letting a blind man take your picture you might be dead on or you might not even be in the frame. In closing: "So six blind men of Hindustan disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion exceeding stiff and strong; Though each was partly in the right, they all were in the wrong!"

First of all, I did not state that self perpetuation was lifes only purpose, only that self perpetuation is sufficient purpose to justify itself. Second, you just altered the question from "Does life have purpose?" to "What is the purpose of evolution? and "What are we doing here? you should really start new threads for those. Fred, if you are really seeking he answer to your question then you should more clearly define what you are asking. If you are trying to find support for your own theory, why don't you just tell us what it is and we can debate it. Are you withholding your own theory seeking a favorable environment to launch it?

Intelligence is the ability to apply meaning to stimuli. Accuracy or consensus regarding the meaning of a particular set of stimuli quantifies the level of intelligence. Level of intelligence is a sliding scale which allows the application of new meanings from the addition, combination, or recombination of stimuli as well as the recognition of minds that process the meaning of stimuli in a more efficient manner. Sancho Panza

Vista The new WINDOWS ME nuff said Sancho Panza

A broad range of responses to a question does not necessarily indicate that the subject is complicated. It is at least equally likely that the question was poorly asked. Philosophy aside, if lifes only purpose is to perpetuate itself then it has attained all of the justification it needs. Sancho Panza

simply put, The correct answer is "Life indeed has a purpose and the purpose of life is to provide a stage for playing out the interaction between my mind and my surroundings. Try and mount a cohesive argument against this statement without changing the point of view from which it is considered. Sanco Panza

Question: Does life have purpose? Answer: Yes. Obviously. Of course, now that such an unequivocal statement has been profferred, it must be supported, thus we get to the real question: What is the purpose of life? I don't think one can define the purpose of life without a point of view from which to discuss the question. For instance, from my point of view, the purpose of life is to provide a stage for playing out the interaction between my mind and my surroundings. For each reader, the purpose of life is the exactly the same unless one alters the primary contextual element which is "point of view" If one views the question from the point of view of our planet, one might state that the purpose of life is to compost the planet's organic material. From a theological point of view based on mankind as a whole, one might state that the purpose of life is to attain a higher level of soul purification or to satisfy the whim of a deity. From the point of view of the universe, life may have no purpose other than our apparent existence inconsequentially on a particle of receding debris. If someone was to formulate a response that satisfies every nuance discussed in this forum they still would not have answered the question. They will have just identified another point of view. Because everyone is permitted a different point of view and because we all possess the ability, if not the willingness, to consider different points of view, there can be no answer that totally satisfies the construct of the question. In other words, in order to answer the question, "What is the purpose of life?" one has to narrow the parameters and identify the point of view from which it must be considered.