Does life have purpose?

[Paralith]

"Evolution works without either plan or purpose" … "Evolution is random and undirected”

(Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine’s Biology (4th ed. 1998), pg. 658) --These guys need to explain, in that case, why evolution produces valid, well-adapted organisms. In short, I believe they are incorrect.

 

Natural selection produces organisms adapted to their environment. Other mechanisms of evolution do not.

 

Why do you believe that the process that changes a population of purposive life forms must in itself be purposeful?

 

Our purpose as organisms is to create as many successful progeny as possible. What is the purpose in creating so many successful progeny? To spread certain genes in the population. What is the purpose of spreading those genes in the population? Why is this so necessary?

 

And no, the purpose is not to create better adapted organisms. Better adapted organisms arise because they are the ones that are able to create the most progeny in a given environment. But the original drive to have progeny, to replicate parts of yourself - where is the purpose in that? There is none.

 

The process that leads to the changing of a population of purposive individuals does not have to be purposeful itself.

[Fred56]

the original drive to have progeny, to replicate parts of yourself

Again, this is a philosophical distinction. The "drive" to have progeny is purposive.

Better adapted organisms arise because they are the ones that are able to create the most progeny in a given environment.

The genome and the associated functional 'operators' that read and maintain it are an "agency with purpose" or 'intent' - which is to "allow" an organism to "contribute" (via reproduction) to a process we call evolution. This process 'arises' from the evolved and evolving 'gene-space', or it is the 'arising'...

 

At a Biochem lecture once, the class was told (by a Professor Daniel) in one of those "at the end of the day" statements (if he had used that particular phrase I would've probably groaned involuntarily) about Life and the subject we were studying; he said (this has "stuck" with me since): "Life is just chemistry".

 

I guess so, but it's a really complicated chemistry: multiple reactions and feedback "control" mechanisms. Lots of interconnections and "structure" you don't find in a beaker or test-tube with reacting chemicals in it.

 

Structure "defines" life; Life is a kind of "structured entropy", or alternately, life "emerges" from the structure much like a car or a washing-machine "emerges" not from its parts, but from the way they are put together (structured). Is a chemical reaction (chemistry) purposive? Is Life 'just' a chemical reaction? Is self-assembly of 'parts' purposive? Is a DNA repair enzyme an agent with "purpose"?

[iNow]

P.P.S. What was the purpose of your last communique, bro?

You asked me a question about my comment to you regarding repetition not adding validity.

You asked for evidence that you made unsupported and invalid assertions.

You asked for proof that duplication does not add any new information to the subject of said duplication.

You refuted that you had made assertions, and you stated that you seriously doubted my ability to show you had.

 

I think I did a fair job of addressing all of those. If you feel otherwise, please do keep asking questions and for proof. I'd be glad to illustrate your inconsistency to everyone here, but feel confident you've done fine at this task all by yourself.

 

If you want to talk philosophy, go to general discussion. You posted in Biology.

 

What was that definition of insanity again? Something about doing the same thing and expecting different results?

[Fred56]

that definition of insanity again?

Oh, right, that one.

Writing the word "analysis" down somewhere, or including it in a sentence is not doing anything more meaningful that seeing if you can spell it.

Your claim that you have demonstrated anything simply doesn't stand up (i.e. it falls over).

When a judge makes a decision, usually an analysis is laid out as a part of that decision, on several sheets of paper. This includes all of the "matters" they considered, why they were considered, and what their thinking was. In short, an explanation is provided (to the public record) of why and how (what the judges thinking -philosophy- was) the decision was reached: an analysis. Now tell me that I think you should study Law...

 

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 [/b']the examples.

Therefore evolution looks a lot like it is "trying" to produce organisms that are "the best fit". This is because it appears purposeful to us.

[iNow]

Now tell me that I think you should study Law...

Why do you want me to tell you what you think? That doesn't make sense.

[Paralith]

Again, this is a philosophical distinction. The "drive" to have progeny is purposive.

 

Ok. Purposive of what? What is the purpose of that drive?

 

The genome and the associated functional 'operators' that read and maintain it are an "agency with purpose" or 'intent' - which is to "allow" an organism to "contribute" (via reproduction) to a process we call evolution. This process 'arises' from the evolved and evolving 'gene-space', or it is the 'arising'...

 

At a Biochem lecture once, the class was told (by a Professor Daniel) in one of those "at the end of the day" statements (if he had used that particular phrase I would've probably groaned involuntarily) about Life and the subject we were studying; he said (this has "stuck" with me since): "Life is just chemistry".

 

I guess so, but it's a really complicated chemistry: multiple reactions and feedback "control" mechanisms. Lots of interconnections and "structure" you don't find in a beaker or test-tube with reacting chemicals in it.

 

Structure "defines" life; Life is a kind of "structured entropy", or alternately, life "emerges" from the structure much like a car or a washing-machine "emerges" not from its parts, but from the way they are put together (structured). Is a chemical reaction (chemistry) purposive? Is Life 'just' a chemical reaction? Is self-assembly of 'parts' purposive? Is a DNA repair enzyme an agent with "purpose"?

 

What are you trying to say with this? That now you don't think individual lifeforms can be purposeful?

[Reaper]

So, yeah, anyways, lets talk about biology now.....

[foodchain]

At a Biochem lecture once, the class was told (by a Professor Daniel) in one of those "at the end of the day" statements (if he had used that particular phrase I would've probably groaned involuntarily) about Life and the subject we were studying; he said (this has "stuck" with me since): "Life is just chemistry".

 

I guess so, but it's a really complicated chemistry: multiple reactions and feedback "control" mechanisms. Lots of interconnections and "structure" you don't find in a beaker or test-tube with reacting chemicals in it.

 

I don’t understand this part. If life were just chemistry then that would make the field of chemistry just biology;) Last time I checked though you do have difference. Its like saying life is just genes when in fact genetics is just one part of the whole. See going back in time life never just appeared say with something as in eukaryotes came from prokaryotes, so again say DNA itself could be a temporal product of natural selection in itself, I think this simple ass point gets missed a lot. Reproduction either asexually and sexually though seem to persist also, so would it be life is sex centered? What about resource centered? Maybe survival value is a big mixing pot of these things at any giving moment, being life would not make to much a splash if it managed to only persist a few minutes on earth in total.

 

So I guess the point I am trying to get at is chemistry is a tool of a certain scale really, and it views primarily just that. Now its not that I think chemistry does not have a huge application in understanding life, just that its not the end all by far. I mean what energetically on a quantum level leads to life? Does Schrödinger’s cat or the uncertainty principal hold any fundamental effects on life? I mean life occurs physically in reality under physical laws and phenomena right, chemistry is not all of that and again its just a tool of a certain scale in which to make observations.

 

I mean the life sciences have a ton of fields you can study, like molecular biophysical chemistry:D Maybe animal behavior, I mean how can carbon fall in love? I think that many larger questions also fall in line with big questions like evolution, the scary thing to me is what happens when two natural sciences reach different conclusions. For instance I think selection rules on a quantum level are not fully understood yet people already have an idea of what is impossible in some fields. If going by just what life does for the most part, well it seems to persist really even though it does not appear to be fundamental in nature to what extent of nature is truly fundamental.

[Fred56]

Other mechanisms of evolution do not.

There are other 'mechanisms' as well as selection for evolution?

Why do you believe that the process that changes a population of purposive life forms must in itself be purposeful?

Why are you claiming it isn't? Can you demostrate with some argument, that evolution (a process) is in fact purposeless? Isn't an organised activity which appears to be directed toward adaptation itself -in particular to an ability to adapt phenotypically to gradual but inexorable climatic changes, ushered in by things like continental drift, e.g., and also to micro-state kinds of change in local conditions -organisms that can exploit their environment in multiple ways are better adapted than ones who have evolved only a single method, and are specialised or obligate lifeforms, which can only occupy certain niche positions- purposeful? Evolution results in a range or a spread of representatives that are variously efficient (some may abandon multiple exploitative function for the option of developing a super-efficient one -putting all the eggs in one basket).

the purpose is not to create better adapted organisms. Better adapted organisms arise because they are the ones that are able to create the most progeny in a given environment.

Why are they able to do this?

But the original drive to have progeny, to replicate parts of yourself - where is the purpose in that? There is none.

What do you mean by "the original drive"?

lets talk about biology now.....

What's it doing now and then, how is it do you suppose?

...life emerges from [its] structure much like a car or a washing-machine "emerges" not from its parts, but from the way they are put together (structured). Is a chemical reaction (chemistry) purposive? Is Life 'just' a chemical reaction? Is self-assembly of 'parts' purposive? Is a DNA repair enzyme an agent with purpose?

[richard]

Better than nothing.

[Fred56]

You could have done though.

[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.

[Paralith]

There are other 'mechanisms' as well as selection for evolution?

 

From my post #77:

The exact definition of evolution is simply a change in the gene frequency of a population. This can happen via random mutation and genetic drift, which by no means guarantee a more "efficient" species.

 

From my post #81:

I said evolution is only change - whether or not that change is good or bad is irrelevant. That change can come about through mechanisms that are not related to the ability to reproduce or survive, and can therefore yield less "efficient" organisms.

 

From my post #98:

No, the allele can be lost simply through chance. This is much more likely to happen in small populations of course, but it can happen that the dice fell in such a way that none of the offspring of the next generation received that particular allele, and so it is lost from the population. Of course alleles can be lost environmentally, but they can be lost this way also, and through a random mutation that renders the gene non-functional, or through a natural disaster that kills all the individuals with that one allele, etc.

 

 

So, to clarify: Other mechanisms of evolution beyond natural selection include mutation, genetic drift, and one I did not mention before, sexual selection. All these will induce a change in the population's gene pool from one generation to the next.

 

Why are you claiming it isn't? Can you demostrate with some argument, that evolution (a process) is in fact purposeless?

 

From my post #90:

Yes, once life began, and began to replicate in such a fashion that the members of the next generation are not always exact genetic copies of the first generation, evolution began also. … Evolution is the description of a change.

 

From my post #81:

What you're talking about is not evolution but natural selection, which is only one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. And what is the "selector" in natural selection? It's the environment a given animal lives in. The circumstances of that environment (which most certainly includes other organisms) are such that unfit individuals die and do not leave offspring behind. It is not the function or the purpose of the environment to do so; it is just a property of the environment. Natural selection has no more plan or purpose or reason to exist than do dirt and water - which is none.

 

Why are they able to do this?

 

Because if any of their ancestors that came before them did not, then they died, or at the very least did not reproduce as successfully as others.

 

What do you mean by "the original drive"?

 

I mean, why make more of yourself? What is the purpose for that? The very first organisms, the first protocells - they made more of themselves. They reproduced. Why? What is the point of doing that? Life exists today because that's what they did. But there's no good reason for why they did.

[Fred56]

once life began, and began to replicate in such a fashion that the members of the next generation are not always exact genetic copies of the first generation, evolution began also.

My initial response to this was: when did evolution begin? After life began to replicate? What was it doing to "hang in there for a while" before it could do this? Would you say that they must, therefore, have been simultaneous (or very closely timed 'events')?

the purpose is not to create better adapted organisms. Better adapted organisms arise because they are the ones that are able to create the most progeny in a given environment.

Why are they able to do this?

 

Because if any of their ancestors that came before them did not' date=' then they died, or at the very least did not reproduce as successfully as others.[/quote']

This looks just a little bit circular: How did ancestors "come before"; they were "better adapted" (because of the serendipity of the evolutionary process), so produced more progeny which inherited the 'better' genome?

So their "apparent purpose" in producing progeny -reproducing- is driven by nothing more complex than "that's how it works"?

Sure, I understand that you can define purpose out of the whole thing. I just think this might be an arbitrary thing we do in order to avoid the "problem" purposefulness presents to the "life in a box" concept. Maybe it's just me...

[Sancho Panza]

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

[Paralith]

My initial response to this was: when did evolution begin? After life began to replicate? What was it doing to "hang in there for a while" before it could do this? Would you say that they must, therefore, have been simultaneous (or very closely timed 'events')?

 

Evolution began when the next generation was not exactly the same as the generation that came before it, since evolution is simply change. As the exact nature of the very first life is still inconclusive, I do not know if, perhaps, the very first replication was EXACT replication, or if even in that very first replication so too did the first replication error of mutation creep in, creating the very first change and the very first instance of evolution. And yes, the begining of life and the first instance of evolution were of course, at the very least, closely timed events. I never said otherwise.

 

This looks just a little bit circular: How did ancestors "come before"; they were "better adapted" (because of the serendipity of the evolutionary process), so produced more progeny which inherited the 'better' genome?

So their "apparent purpose" in producing progeny -reproducing- is driven by nothing more complex than "that's how it works"?

Sure, I understand that you can define purpose out of the whole thing. I just think this might be an arbitrary thing we do in order to avoid the "problem" purposefulness presents to the "life in a box" concept. Maybe it's just me...

 

It looks circular because you asked a question about a statement that is, in itself, the answer to the question.

 

Let's think about the first self-replicating molecules, that formed in a spontaneous chemical reaction. The structure of one kind of molecule is such that it can maintain its shape in water very well. The structure of another kind of molecule is such that its shape is not stable when in water. That first molecule will be able to self-replicate better. You might even say that a kind of proto-natural selection has just taken place. The structure of the first molecule was such that it was able to achieve replication better then the second molecule in the environment of water. And from there on it went until there was life.

[Fred56]

You still lack a working knowledge of how evolution works' date=' but you are getting there.

[/quote']

Yes, well my science degree has been some help. Those Biochem, Microbiology, Chemistry, etc, courses I took probably delivered at least a little insight... Maybe a Ph.D. will do it.

The structure of the first molecule was such that it was able to achieve replication better then the second molecule in the environment of water. And from there on it went until there was life.

This is the big problem with our current understanding of the evolutionary process: we can't explain how it 'started'. An evolving organism is "already evolving" -this is the definition- but the 'first' attempts at 'life' (or some kind of self-sustaining process) were presumably much simpler concoctions? The 'jump' or transition, from these first proto-life forms, is what we need to sort out, what did these things actually do, in terms of evolving; what was the set of 'drivers' that caused it to become self-replicating and be able to hand down its 'coded' form to new versions of itself: to reproduce successfully?

 

P.S. possibly some of the confusion flying around is because we tend to use the same language to mean the thing itself, and what it does -"evolution is what evolution does". But the actual process is random and undirected, whereas the results appear purposeful, therefore evolution appears to have purpose. But it's like saying the messages are the channel. The channel is required for communication, but the messages are distinct from it. A book isn't information, the information "in" a book is actually in the mind of its reader. They aren't the "same" thing, after all.

[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.

[mooeypoo]

There is a big issue we need to address here, I think, and that is the natural tendency of human beings to search for "purpose". We are the only animals that think of "why we are here" philosophically.

 

Thinking about it, though, doesn't mean life has a *purpose* in nature.

 

It all comes down to how you define 'purpose'. If you define it psychologically or philosophically, then yea - sure - we all have our own purpose in life, according to our belief system (not necessarily religious), our morality, our understanding of our surroundings, etc.

 

If you ask the question *biologically* then I am not sure it is even valid to ask. The purpose of life is to live and multiply.. perhaps that would be a close definition, but then again, that's not quite 'purpose', it's more of a 'function'.

 

Purpose relates more to the individual's sense of worth, and in nature that's not quite much. That doesn't mean we aren't worth anything, but it means that the question should be clarified as to what exactly you mean by 'purpose'.

 

As for evolution, I believe there is a fundamental error here as well. You seem to relate to evolution as a purpose towards advancement, when in reality, it is nothing more than what humans call this process of change.

 

Evolution always comes with "Natural Selection"; it is a common mistake to think that evolution is a 'planned' change towards the incredible beings we are today, but that is mostly because of our psyche and ego. Truth is, we have a lot of flaws, and we keep changing, but the change is not a 'path' you can accurately predict - it is the adaptation to our invironment. If our invironment changes (and it is), the path could twist, twirl, U-turn, climb-up, fall or split.

 

It has happened before.

 

Many times

 

P.S. possibly some of the confusion flying around is because we tend to use the same language to mean the thing itself, and what it does -"evolution is what evolution does". But the actual process is random and undirected, whereas the results appear purposeful, therefore evolution appears to have purpose. But it's like saying the messages are the channel. The channel is required for communication, but the messages are distinct from it. A book isn't information, the information "in" a book is actually in the mind of its reader. They aren't the "same" thing, after all.

 

 

Yes, of course we appear to have a purpose, or that the process appears to be purposeful, but that's JUST what it is -- an appearance.

Seriously, check this out, it explains this ENTIRE debate with visual aids and the awesomeness of Richard Dawkins' eloquence. It's also free and online, and legal: http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

 

What you're saying is answered there in the beginning, and then proved throughout the entire series. It's WELL worth it. Very interesting.

 

~moo

[Fred56]

OK, but what I'm getting at is one is a process, the other is the result.

You could, of course, call both of them a process (and therefore also a result).

Like one is the inverse or derivative of the other, or something.

[mooeypoo]

OK, but what I'm getting at is one is a process, the other is the result.

You could, of course, call both of them a process (and therefore also a result).

Like one is the inverse or derivative of the other, or something.

 

I'm sorry but -- which is which? uhm.. I am not sure I got what you mean.

 

Do you mean that Evolution is the process and Natural Selection the result? Or Natural Selection is the process and Evolution the result?

 

Neither is neither, and both are both. They're *together*. Evolution by means of natural selection --> that's the NAME for the phenomena.

 

Evolution is not a result. Neither is Natural Selection.

 

If anything, Evolution is the process, and Natural Selection is the 'tool'.

 

Again.. watch the video, you're asking things that are answered there scientifically while defining evolution in its correct manner.

 

~moo

[Fred56]

So they're distinct things? Isn't a tool a function?

[mooeypoo]

Not by my definition.

 

Would you define a hammer or a screwdriver 'a function'?

 

And uh.. aren't we bouncing around on subjects here? I believe the question was purpose, and then procees -> result, which i answered last...

[Fred56]

Would you define a hammer or a screwdriver 'a function'?

Not as objects in themselves, no. But I might use one functionally, to investigate the possibility of undoing screws, say. I would apply an energy input (torque) to the the screwdriver (me) and map the screw to a new value. That's what functions do, they map or commute things, from one state to another. Lots of them can do it with numbers, but (using) a screwdriver is a function.

 

Look at it this way: there's this thing that is a good technique for doing something -let's call this something an algorithm, or a process. If I use this technique, I become something that is more than it was, a thing that can now do some action, thanks to this new technique or method an apparatus. OK but I haven't stopped being what I was before, and if I lose or discard this appendage, or tool, I'm back to how I was.

If the tool is a screw-turning thing, when I hold it I'm a thing that can turn screws, a screw-turner, but I'm still me. If I disconnect from this device, or extension, it's still itself. The language is confusing --we call the thing we use the same name as what we do with it. i.e the language we use is full of verbal nouns

[Fred56]

Science is application of a method (of observation), which attempts to acquire or collect objective information (which isn't coloured by any thinking --except about 'how best' to collect the 'wanted' data).

Objective observation is the key to the desired accuracy of any measurement. The noise in any channel must be minimised, if possible, or at least understood.

e.g.

Tabernarius modi sciens instrumenti, paret aptissimu sumer.

 

is this channel noisy? do you need some technique or method (like a dictionary of some kind), to commute the message?