Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 02:03 (3475 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: That is the whole point of the inventive mechanism: once set in motion, it designs all forms of life, innovating, accumulating, expanding, all the way through to humans.-Given the gaps in the fossil tree of evolution, the concept of an IM must account for the leaps in complexity. So far in our discussion, it doesn't do that. If by 'accumulating' you mean gaining experience by experimenting, once again, no itty-bitty steps are seen. That is why I call it semi-autonomous. Its instructional manual may provide guidelines for advancement, and I am not saying specific instructions.- 
> dhw: Your God can still be involved through his invention of the inventive mechanism. Autonomous invention within the constraints and guidelines applicable to all inventions and activities, including our own (what can and can't be done, what conditions are laid down by the environment) is not your scenario, it's mine, as is clear from your reference above to humans and below to the Cambrian problem. -But this comment of yours avoids purpose, and I can't do that, because I see the purpose in everything. My guidelines offer some directionality to evolution. yes, we get the nerer-ending bushiness, but for me it esplains humans, when none were ever necessary under Darwin guidelines. -> dhw: And my inventive mechanism takes what exists to work with and its invention is something new, and its purpose is to create something useful. But you can modify my scenario if you think your God's mechanism is incapable of turning apes into humans. -> 
> DAVID: One problem I have is the Cambrian explosion. -> dhw: So what are you suggesting? That God separately created all those new organs? Or that he took existing organisms and manipulated their genomes (= dabbled)? If it's the latter, it suggests your God was not capable of creating an IM that could invent anything so complicated, whereas he himself could pop in and do it just like that. Well, if he could do it, why couldn't he invent a mechanism that could do it? ..... It doesn't make sense, does it? But an autonomous IM explains it all. Organisms go their own higgledy-piggledy way.- I still insist 'semi-autonomous', but I could assume that God invented an inventing mechanism, so He could just sit back and watch. Not pre-programming and not dabbling, just evolving in semi-controlled directions, toward humans.
> 
> DAVID: So, did the IM invent itself? Or again, no purpose? For me the evidence is strongly suggestive of purpose.-> dhw: Your question is not a true alternative. The alternatives would be: did it invent itself, or was it invented by a designer (your God)?
> DAVID: Exactly my point. The IM must have exquisite planning ability to create the Cambrian animals. A major point for considering it invented by God.
> 
> dhw: Good. So now you are agreeing that the IM could have done it, whereas a moment ago you were using the absence of fossils to cast doubt on it. That wasn't your point, though. You were telescoping two issues: 1) Was the mechanism designed by your God? 2) Did/does it have a purpose? -The point is clear to me. The IM must be invented by God in order to do the planning for Cambrian animals that can live. The complexity of the Cambrian requires exquisite planning, just as a semi-independent IM literally cannot invent itself, the complexity of its required advance planning ability is far too great
> 
> DAVID: Your explorations of God's mind are amusing. I still don't know what was on his mind when he created evolution to create us eventually. Why not just do it, instead of evolving a universe and humans over time?
> 
> dhw: “To create us” is the anthropocentric view I am questioning. Why is that to be taken seriously and the alternatives I offer are amusing? Why assume that human nature is alien to anything your God might experience? Of course we can't read his mind (if he exists at all), but when you claim that his aim was to produce humans, you open the gate to alternative interpretations.-If we can't read His mind why try? In regard to humans arriving on the scene, they did and they are a most unusual result for evolution, way beyond anything necessary for Darwin's survival approach. Therefore, survival is not a key evolutionary condition. If there is purpose, we are the purposeful intent. 
> 
> DAVID: I see nothing but purpose, and you seem to struggle to champion accidental, balancing on your fence.
> 
> dhw:But what is that purpose? I'm currently struggling to understand how evolution might work, and I'm offering an inventive alternative to random mutations, to divine preprogramming, and to divine dabbling, and suggesting the purposes of survival and improvement.-Random mutation doesn't really work. we have concluded that.