Does Evolution have a point?

[MaxCathedral]

I am not trying to be clever.

 

True natural selection, survival of the fittest all play into who survives and who doesn't.

 

But does the very machinary of Evolution have a purpose, plan if you will?

 

Some Evolutioinists would argue that it doesn't.

 

Thoughts?

[JaKiri]

I don't see how the repurcussions of random events can be said to be a "plan", so I say no.

[NavajoEverclear]

nope. it happens because it can. but at the same time, it is not pointLESS. it is neither with nor without a purpose, it is what it is.

[Hellbender]

But does the very machinary of Evolution have a purpose, plan if you will?

Does gravity have a purpose? Tectonic plate theory? They, like evolution, simply happen.

[Hellbender]

True natural selection, survival of the fittest all play into who survives and who doesn't.

Not completely true. Simply put, natural selection plays into which organism will pass on its DNA and whether or not its offspring will be able to do the same.

[Skye]

Evolution is, unfortunately, hell-bent upon universal conquest and doom.

[MaxCathedral]

Not completely true. Simply put, natural selection plays into which organism will pass on its DNA and whether or not its offspring will be able to do the same.

 

 

Max: Hellbender, I stand corrected. Thank you. You are of course right.

[Bluenoise]

Purpose? Well that is a phylisophical question really. Life does use it for it's own purposes, but saying that is more of a play on the word. There is no organised purpose though.

 

 

However, some would argue that eventhough evolution isn't guided there is an element of organisation involved. Only meaning that certain things are more likely to evolve than others. Evolution doesn't seem to just proceed randomly in all directions. It has a way of finding a good idea and improving upon this idea, though this can all be argued probablisitically through natural selection. Take the cambrain explosion for example, the recent shift toward multicellular organisation resulted in the need to experiment with many body plans. Many quickly evolved, but very few survive to this day. Since then evoluction has focus mainly on the improvement of these few ancient plans, new ones doesn't really emerge anymore. There is no record of an insect evolving two extra legs eventhough 8 legs is shown to work with spiders. Such an change would be a too drastic shift from well working body plan insects already have. It's like when bicycles were first invented remember seeing pictures of all those weird early designs? Well nowadays most bikes look fairly simular. Sure there are a few variations for specific purposes but even these don't appear as often as they used to nowadays.

 

There is a book that has many modern insights on evolution.

Steven Kaffmans - At home in the universe : A search for the laws of self-organisation and complexity.

 

I'd recomend taking it with a grain of salt however.

[Deathby]

Think of it this way. Simplistically evolution is:

bacteria=> lots of crazy ocean stuff=> fish(first vertebrates)=>amphibians=>reptiles-birds/mammals=> Homo sapiens, supreme masters of the world.

 

But bacteria are very well adapted to their environments and can survive where nothing else can. Things go backwards such as whales and penguins going back into the water. I even heard that some 'bacteria' were found that were actually eukarotes becoming prokaryotes again (eukaryotes=multi-celled, prokaryotes=single).

 

Although there does seem to be a general progression towards complexity, I think we have to realise that we only notice the complex stuff because its bigger. There are tens of billions of species of bacteria, billions of insects, millions of vertebrates, tens of hominids.

[Martin]

Evolution is, unfortunately, hell-bent upon universal conquest and doom.

 

want to enlarge on that interesting observation?

 

BTW do you think that evolution has given us instincts and abilities that make it possible to contemplate spreading life to other planetary systems in the galaxy? (speaking of "universal conquest" well, maybe conquest is not it so much as fertilization/colonization finding new niches)

[Ophiolite]

Things go backwards such as whales and penguins going back into the water.

It's rather terracentric to view a return to the sea as a retrograde step.

I even heard that some 'bacteria' were found that were actually eukarotes becoming prokaryotes again (eukaryotes=multi-celled, prokaryotes=single).

There are plenty of single celled eukaryotes. The distinction between eukaryotes and prokaryotes is one of cell organisation and complexity, not cell number.

[rakuenso]

I didn't think it was simply possible for eukaryotes to shed their mitochondria, nucleus and choloroplasts? deathby source please.

[Cornelius]

In order to answer this question, we must imagine what life would be like with no evolution. Or simply put, would there be life?

 

Evolution means progress. Today, in terms of industry, each new machine that is made is an innovation, something that is stronger, faster, sipmly better than its predecessor. This is what separates one company from another, success-wise.

 

Now let's view natural evolution, in terms of life. If animals never progressed, they would be outdated compared to its predators. Is this a problem? No, natural evolution is unnecessary. Natural selection does promote the diversity of species, yet evolution does not bring the animals towards anything. No goal, unless you consider survival a goal. Evolution does promote the "survival of the fittest" motto, but as one species advances, its predator ultimately advances as well. The ratio remains the same. If the deer becomes built to run faster, then the lion develops stronger legs to be able to keep up. That's nature, one evolutionary step leads to another evolutionary step, utterly useless, only bringing about diversity and a new view on life. Call it progress, or change, but this is a case where change is seemingly not for the better.

[Nicholas]

Its not random. Its pure order from begining to end.

The appearant randomness is really the intended order.

Better to ask what is the purpose of life?

 

Even better yet what is the meaning of your own life?

[Sayonara]

I am not trying to be clever.

 

True natural selection' date=' survival of the fittest all play into who survives and who doesn't.

 

But does the very machinary of Evolution have a purpose, plan if you will?

 

Some Evolutioinists would argue that it doesn't.

 

Thoughts?[/quote']

You have received an unhelpful mix of responses because your question mixes the terms point, purpose and plan, as if they were synonymous. This creates a problem because they are not.

 

The point of evolution is to allow species (pl) to survive and flourish.

 

The purpose of evolution is to enable species to adapt to changes in their habitat, and intra~/inter-specific competitive status.

 

There is no plan to evolution - it's all feedback.

[Oxygen]

The point of evolution is to allow species (pl) to survive and flourish.

 

Why do we have to survive and flourish ... We could just survive like a Rock ... Where exactly is the distinction between living and non-living being ... Do u accept Non-living beings also survive

[Sayonara]

The "why" isn't a requirement, but since you asked, when was the last time you saw rocks flourishing?

 

The answer is that you never have, because a rock isn't a living system (the distinction is fairly simple, and no - this is not the place to go into it, ta very much), and the comparison is therefore invalid. You are compounding the mistake of the first post by deliberately using "survive" in place of "continuously exist", and by disregarding the fact that - actually - rocks don't necessarily "continuously exist" at all.

[Ophiolite]

Better to ask what is the purpose of life?

 

Even better yet what is the meaning of your own life?

And best of all "what is the meaning of the concatenation of drivel you have posted to these forums"?

[YT2095]

and ALL of it pre-supposes that there IS a Purpose or Meaning!

[Cornelius]

Why do we have to survive and flourish ... We could just survive like a Rock ... Where exactly is the distinction between living and non-living being ... Do u accept Non-living beings also [i']survive[/i]

 

We usually use the term "evolution" to describe living matter, such as animals and plants. A rock is a non-living object, it does not evolve, it lasts. Rocks have no predators, therefore there is no need for it to constantly change its form in order to survive. Even though water in canyons slowly but surely carve away at the rock walls, this is seen as a natural process, one that shapes the geographical future of the earth. Is it necessary? No, it's not but we cannot stop it because it is a natural, unstoppable force. Similarly, natural selection is just that, natural, and seeing as it does no harm to any certain animal or plant population, it continues.

[Dr_666]

But does the very machinary of Evolution have a purpose' date=' plan if you will?

 

Some Evolutioinists would argue that it doesn't.

 

Thoughts?[/quote']

 

Evolutionary biologists cannot accept that evolution has a purpose, plan or point. Said this:

 

Evolution is just the consequence of changes in our gene pools over time, due to random mutations, natural selection and other processes. The course of evolution is also unpredictable. Things that today are bad, tomorrow (in evolutionary time) may save your life.

 

Let me give you an example. Sickle cell anaemia is a disease with a genetic origin. The mutation that causes sickle cell anaemia is transmitted from parents to children. You would expect this disease to disappear after some time, because the individuals that carry the mutation are more likely to die before they have children. However, the mutation is very frequent, which indicates that the trend has been the opposite (as if those individuals that carry the mutation had more children over many generations). Why is this?

 

There is a simple explanation: because the sickle cell mutation also confers resistance to malaria, an infectious disease. Suffering from sickle cell anaemia must be less bad than suffering from malaria, and thus, the carriers of the mutation reproduced better. The explanation for this is known quite well. The malaria parasite that infects cells after anchoring to some molecule. The absence of this molecule due to sickle cell mutation results in malaria resistance as a side effect.

 

This is a good example that evolution is blind.

 

Dr_666