Does Evolution have a purpose?

[rocksteady]

I know, it's traditional for humans to wrongly view themselves as the center of the universe, but when thinking in terms of evolution, why? What is causing this, why is this the way of the world. Is it a computer program written by some god-like species? I know it is a bit fantastic to think in this direction, but I have always had a sense of unease when thinking of the nature of evolution.

[Ian]

The word Purpose implies a goal or pr-planned end product - nature does not have these; nature joes 'is' and just 'does'.

The concept of evolution is man's attempt to try to understand how the natural variation from one generation to another, to another in a sequence in which successive generations may have some ort of advantage in their environment. If the do - then there is a chance that they will out-survive their peers, if they don't there is a chance that they will not, so the advantaged siblings are in a better position to pass on their genes.

The advantage does not have to be major; maybe slightly different colouring to allow them to hide better in that environment, it may be that they can run or swim faster, or see better or have slightly thicker fur, gradual changes over time to allow them to store fat and sleep during winter months.

Not planned, not pre-destined, just 'is'.

[rocksteady]

The word Purpose implies a goal or pr-planned end product - nature does not have these;

says who? how could you ever really know?

[GOD]

I know, it's traditional for humans to wrongly view themselves as the center of the universe, but when thinking in terms of evolution, why? What is causing this, why is this the way of the world. Is it a computer program written by some god-like species? I know it is a bit fantastic to think in this direction, but I have always had a sense of unease when thinking of the nature of evolution.


Ok, if we assume Earth was seeded from genetic material (bacteria etc) that came from an external source... then it’s obvious that the path of evolution via DNA could be following its predetermined Unidirectional path.

I had a really off beat theory that any life form +10b years (As there are sun systems about 14b years old) more advanced, may well have evolved to lose their physical existence (Their decision as its more functional to send encoded data around the Universe and then recreate physical existence at the destination)... However, that would not explain why we're still not in contact. So, I realized that just perhaps life itself could be a unique existence allowing aliens to feel and live like they once did... In effect Earth is an amusement park that we share for our lifetimes in the ultimate escapist reality.

To me, the Universe is probably teaming with the basic building blocks for life and I think that Earth is just part of some spawn, just like a desert island gets populated by the floating coconut seed.

[brewmaster]

God,
I find your theory interesting, and have had similar theories in the past.

There is a theory put forth by evolutionary biologists that DNA itself is the only important molecule. In that it, not the organisms that it inhabits, is the 'intelligent' being that insists upon its survival. It evolves to continue its survival, and continues to interact with other DNA molecules to create elaborate beings to diversify itself.

I didn't explain that very well because I pretty much ignored that theory when I heard it. The reason is that bacteria, the first lifeform, is far more adaptive than any other organism. So why the need to evolve to create organisms that are less adaptive, when the current vehicle is so adaptive that it can simply diversify within it?

If you want some interesting reading try googling 'RNA world' if you have access to it go for the scientific journals. Possibly try scholar.google.

[GOD]

God,
I find your theory interesting, and have had similar theories in the past.

There is a theory put forth by evolutionary biologists that DNA itself is the only important molecule. In that it, not the organisms that it inhabits, is the 'intelligent' being that insists upon its survival. It evolves to continue its survival, and continues to interact with other DNA molecules to create elaborate beings to diversify itself.

I didn't explain that very well because I pretty much ignored that theory when I heard it. The reason is that bacteria, the first lifeform, is far more adaptive than any other organism. So why the need to evolve to create organisms that are less adaptive, when the current vehicle is so adaptive that it can simply diversify within it?

If you want some interesting reading try googling 'RNA world' if you have access to it go for the scientific journals. Possibly try scholar.google.

Yeah, I'll have a look through when I get the chance.

At the moment, I am just testing a theory out and scouting around for info if I can properly back it up.

Actually, here's a question....

Here's another of my theories....

Haplograph tree - rapid change in Northern Europe
Progressing on from the last statement it’s apparent that in the period 35-40k years ago rapid change occurred (M9 to M343) which is evident in Northern European Male (Y) haplogroup.

The progress of it say in a British Male is
M91>M168>M89>M9>M45>M207>M173>M343

Whereas a Southern European Male (Italy) is
M91>M168>M89>M304

Given the lineage of the British male is through the migration through Western Russia and then Northern Europe you can see the huge geographical distance covered. Whereas we see Italians having taken a "short cut" through Greece etc.

So what caused the Northern Europeans genetic clock to change quicker? I believe through interbreeding with less similar tribes as the migration occurred, basically creating greater variability on DNA replication (Including impacts on the Y element).

That could point to older tribes residing in Europe... possibly Neanderthal.

[Winden]

So what caused the Northern Europeans genetic clock to change quicker? I believe through interbreeding with less similar tribes as the migration occurred, basically creating greater variability on DNA replication (Including impacts on the Y element).

That could point to older tribes residing in Europe... possibly Neanderthal.

That is a fascinating theory. Have any attempts been made to compare samples of european DNA with whatever fragments of Neanderthal genetic material we have?

This reminds me of an article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I read a while ago. It certainly seems plausible that a harsh environment would greatly speed up the evolutionary process.

[brewmaster]

This reminds me of an article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I read a while ago. It certainly seems plausible that a harsh environment would greatly speed up the evolutionary process.

Thats the reason.

Humans came out of Africa, the ones that went to Italy didn't have to change much because the climate isn't too terribly different. However progressing further north with an increasingly more difficult climate, the selection pressure cranks up. Thus change started happening quicker because not all could survive.

[rocksteady]

anyone recommend any good books on the subject?

[GOD]

Thats the reason.

Humans came out of Africa, the ones that went to Italy didn't have to change much because the climate isn't too terribly different. However progressing further north with an increasingly more difficult climate, the selection pressure cranks up. Thus change started happening quicker because not all could survive.

I don't actually subscribe to that. Why?

Because we are talking about the effects on the Y chromosome... and all the changes have occurred in that 40k to now period.

Furthermore, environmental conditions don't change the DNA they just affect those that survive. In Italy there should be just as many genetic changes but possibly not as pronounced as a percentage of the population. Also, in Africa there's been little change... and thats a harsh environment to survive in.

It is feasible that Northern European male just had a faster ticking genetic clock (This would allow greater genetic differences to arise quicker). Although I seriously believe that Europe was inhabited by many waves of people. In fact each time the ice age retreated there would have been another flow of people out of Africa (If you absolutely believe that theory - I actually believe in the multi regional approach).

One thing nobody has explained... is that if everyone is out of Africa.. why are their not many sub species of humans. I would expect pockets of near Neanderthal types to have existed for long periods of time in Africa (Just like we have many types of Apes/Monkeys etc).

GOD added, 12 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

Also, here's a theory.

That the passage of CroMagon man through Western Europe merged a number of older tribes of humans (From previous waves) that had small but perceptable genetic differences. As they all interbred we had all these small but noticable changes in the haplogroups. (In fact modern European could be a compression of the last 100,000 years of settlers).

The biggest problem I have, is the lack of Neanderthal bones being uncovered. I think we need to find atleast 1000 copies before we can say 1) They were all the same (and not part of different waves) and 2) There was no genetic cross over that survived into modern man.

GOD added, 57 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

I don't actually subscribe to that. Why?

Because we are talking about the effects on the Y chromosome... and all the changes have occurred in that 40k to now period.

Furthermore, environmental conditions don't change the DNA they just affect those that survive. In Italy there should be just as many genetic changes but possibly not as pronounced as a percentage of the population. Also, in Africa there's been little change... and thats a harsh environment to survive in.

It is feasible that Northern European male just had a faster ticking genetic clock (This would allow greater genetic differences to arise quicker). Although I seriously believe that Europe was inhabited by many waves of people. In fact each time the ice age retreated there would have been another flow of people out of Africa (If you absolutely believe that theory - I actually believe in the multi regional approach).

One thing nobody has explained... is that if everyone is out of Africa.. why are their not many sub species of humans. I would expect pockets of near Neanderthal types to have existed for long periods of time in Africa (Just like we have many types of Apes/Monkeys etc).

GOD added, 12 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

Also, here's a theory.

That the passage of CroMagon man through Western Europe merged a number of older tribes of humans (From previous waves) that had small but perceptable genetic differences. As they all interbred we had all these small but noticable changes in the haplogroups. (In fact modern European could be a compression of the last 100,000 years of settlers).

The biggest problem I have, is the lack of Neanderthal bones being uncovered. I think we need to find atleast 1000 copies before we can say 1) They were all the same (and not part of different waves) and 2) There was no genetic cross over that survived into modern man.

Actually, I've just had another random theory pop into my head.

Just as modern species are supposed to be moving in a Uni Directional approach it’s likely that dinosaurs did as well... their common ancestor DNA sequence was to be big... so they all were. I'd always just believed it was straight out competition that led to them getting bigger and bigger. (I always couldn't understand why animals aren't rapidly getting really huge like the dinosaurs...). Interesting...

[Meyer]

anyone recommend any good books on the subject?

I believe the book Guns, Germs and Steel might help you with this topic

[brewmaster]

I won't add much, because I have more to do. However, inadvertently the DNA does change. This is because those that have beneficial mutations survive to carry on their traits. Therefore the DNA does change, because those that survive had their DNA changed to ensure their survivability and fitness (fitness in the genetic sense, different from the traditional definition).

Something has to cause a 'genetic clock' to change faster. It will not simply be inherit to a population, there has to be a driving force, hence selection pressure.

Please remember that the fossil record is and always will be incomplete due to the extraordinary circumstances it takes to make a fossil. This is why transition species have not and likely will not be found, due to the fact that likely inhabited such a small amount of evolutionary time. I believe in the case of neaderthal etc. that a significant amount of interbreeding did occur. It had to have, but due to the aforementioned factors finding record of such interactions will be rare at best.


'Guns Germs and Steel' is an interesting book. I was only able to get through a few chapters before I had to give it up and go back to reading for my profession. But all of the synopses and commentary on this book have proven to me that it is worthy of reading. His theories are valid and worth review.

[blueback]

I'm not into biology, I tried it but it's too squishy.

However, I did hear a theory that might be applicable to this issue. One of the things that is correlated with human success in a geographic area is the domesticatability of the local fauna. A good example of the advantage people have when they have access to useful animals is the Inca. A force of something like 200 Spaniards on horseback defeated an Incan army of 80,000 who had never seen a horse before.

Some areas, like Europe, have canines, bovines, equines, rhumenants, etc that are easy to domesticate and produce lots of great things like milk, fabric, and labor. Humans surrounded by that possibility would have more of a chance to develop their brains because there would be a larger payoff for thinking.

I also heard that freezing water could have something to do with it. Areas which have both liquid and solid water would require the locals to adapt more than areas in which water stays a liquid. Liquid water pretty much leads to only the invention of a boat and a bucket. Solid water adds skis, snowshoes, igloos, thicker clothing, methods of fire preservation, alternate fuel sources, etc. Again, a bigger payoff for more thinking.

[brewmaster]

Blueback, you more or less summed up the book 'Guns Germs and Steel' that Meyer referenced. Parts of it that is.

[GOD]

I won't add much, because I have more to do. However, inadvertently the DNA does change. This is because those that have beneficial mutations survive to carry on their traits. Therefore the DNA does change, because those that survive had their DNA changed to ensure their survivability and fitness (fitness in the genetic sense, different from the traditional definition).

Something has to cause a 'genetic clock' to change faster. It will not simply be inherit to a population, there has to be a driving force, hence selection pressure.

Please remember that the fossil record is and always will be incomplete due to the extraordinary circumstances it takes to make a fossil. This is why transition species have not and likely will not be found, due to the fact that likely inhabited such a small amount of evolutionary time. I believe in the case of neaderthal etc. that a significant amount of interbreeding did occur. It had to have, but due to the aforementioned factors finding record of such interactions will be rare at best.


'Guns Germs and Steel' is an interesting book. I was only able to get through a few chapters before I had to give it up and go back to reading for my profession. But all of the synopses and commentary on this book have proven to me that it is worthy of reading. His theories are valid and worth review.

Environmental pressure doesn't as far as I know actually lead to faster DNA change, it just leads to quicker adaptation in the population (for a positive trait). DNA change could be increased by contact with new viruses associated with long migrations across new peoples/tribes.

It’s like the current notion that somehow women in Eastern Europe became blonde as an evolutionary advantage to secure the eligible male... Err.. Just maybe it has something to do with Vitamin E absorption or just that it randomly occurred (like some albino quirk) and was adopted because it was a positive "handicap".

[brewmaster]

It does. The issue is that mutation is contstantly occuring whether we want it to or not. If that mutation is beneficial it will become more abundant in the population. It's simple population genetics, i.e. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. DNA change is being influenced by selection from these mutation events, which is tied to the environment they inhabit because of the selection pressure. Please read up on population genetics, it is a whole field based on what you are asking.

[marcclarke]

says who? how could you ever really know?

Easy enough; all you have to do is to produce the entity that controls randomness.





marcclarke added to this post, 1 minutes and 25 seconds later...

Thats the reason.

Humans came out of Africa, the ones that went to Italy didn't have to change much because the climate isn't too terribly different. However progressing further north with an increasingly more difficult climate, the selection pressure cranks up. Thus change started happening quicker because not all could survive.

Just so. I am blond and blue-eyed. Both are very recent mutations, the DNA researchers have shown.

[Beery Swine]

No. Alien civilization? Where did this yet-to-be defined or discovered civ come from? I mean, "What is causing this, why is this the way the world is"? Would you expect a species with alot of diversity to not have certian individuals surive better than others when the selection pressures change? You might as well ask why (in the philosophical sense of the word) a slinky goes down stairs.

[Ool]

You might as well ask why (in the philosophical sense of the word) a slinky goes down stairs.

Wait, wait, don’t tell me! I know that one…

“To get to the lower floor.”

[replicant]

Love the conversation. Brewmaster, I love your answers for example I appreciated this statement a lot...

Please remember that the fossil record is and always will be incomplete due to the extraordinary circumstances it takes to make a fossil. This is why transition species have not and likely will not be found, due to the fact that likely inhabited such a small amount of evolutionary time.

It is so true, the right set of circumstances are need to produce fossilization. For land dwellers, fossilization is rarer and more difficult especially for animals. Our bones just don't hold up well.

There are more fossilizations of marine soft bodied creatures as evidenced of the tremendous amount of fossils found in the Burgess Shale and other similar sites.

There is debate over whether evolution is a slow and constant process (i.e. gradualism) or rapid.

I would suggest reading about phyletic gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium.
Two forms of gradualism that contrast each other. The viewpoint of geologic time is something that is of considerable interest in regards to the interpretation of evolution and its affect upon life as we know it.

I still have a lot to learn myself even though I had a class that touched about the subject of life and its beginning.

It's a very sticky subject indeed.

[Ool]

It is so true, the right set of circumstances are need to produce fossilization. For land dwellers, fossilization is rarer and more difficult especially for animals. Our bones just don't hold up well.


There was this one episode of “Penn & Teller: Bullshit!” in which they had some former environmentalist claim that the biodiversity on Earth was never higher than it is today. And that instantly made my own red flag go up because, even if it were true, which I don’t believe for a minute, you could never prove it, considering the many orders of magnitude of extinct species who probably never even left fossil records of themselves.

[Marcus]

The word Purpose implies a goal or pr-planned end product - nature does not have these; nature joes 'is' and just 'does'.
I think that life has the inherent purpose of reproduction. That's the main difference between living and non-living matter. You may suppose that nature did not originally have purpose, but purpose has surely emerged with life. BTW, you may also suppose that cause was not always present in the universe and that it emerged at some point. Or to go further, you may also suppose that nature did not have intelligence. But we have. So now nature has it, too, as we are a part of it.

[Mogura]

anyone recommend any good books on the subject?

I recommend "The Journey of Man" by Spencer Wells. A good read...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[replicant]

I plan on reading these books my professor provided as possible supplementary material for the evo debate.

Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature
by Keith Stewart Thomson

The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals
by Simon Conway Morris

[Monte314]

How about the book, "The Case Against Accident and Self-Organization", by Dean L. Overman, published by Rowman and Littlefield, 1997 (ISBN 0-8476-8966-2)

[Fruvous]

says who? how could you ever really know?
You can't prove a negative. Not being able to disprove something is a long, long way from being able to prove it.

Think of it like this. You can't prove there is no God. But you also can't prove that there is no Allah, or Buddha, or Santa Claus, or UFOs, or tiny elves that live in your nose, or whatever. Obviously, we can't believe every single possible thing that is merely impossible to conclusively disprove. So that's not enough. You need to actually prove something to me true, otherwise, your proposition is exactly equal in probability and plausibility as belief in snot goblins.

[thegnat]

The word Purpose implies a goal or pr-planned end product - nature does not have these; nature joes 'is' and just 'does'.
-snip-
Not planned, not pre-destined, just 'is'.
rocksteady said in response:
says who? how could you ever really know?
And then Fruvous talks about the fact that disproving is far from proving. Which I agree with. But in order to prove or disprove something you have to know what you want to prove or disprove.

So let's define purpose (from google and define: purpose):
-(purpose, intent, intention, aim,design): an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are ...
-function(,purpose,role): what something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?"
-aim(purport, propose, purpose): propose or intend; "I aim to arrive at noon"
-determination(,purpose): the quality of being determined to do or achieve something; "his determination showed in his every movement"; "he is a man of purpose"
reach a decision; "he resolved never to drink again"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So let's focus on the first two definitions because I believe they are the most relevant. The first definition is what Ian was referring to. Which I can see what Ian's saying and that the purpose of natural selection doesn't guide the actions, it just happens. Animals aside from humans don't tend to think about their purpose in life. I suppose that's the question rocksteady's referring to. Or perhaps...they do. But is it more basic and is it just "reproduce reproduce reproduce!" and hope that they produce survivors. But that's kinda fishy with respect to actually being a purpose in that definition.

However, leading to the next definition, on the same coin, natural selection can be used as the epitome of purpose. Its purpose is to improve the species with respect to surviving its surrounding environment. Survival of the species. If you can't survive in the present environment, your genes will go into oblivion. The survivors will live and the species will evolve. Depending on whatever characteristic they had that you lacked. So you can say natural selection's purpose (or evolution's purpose because animals evolve due to natural selection) is to better the species with respect to their environment. Enable survival. Etc.

[Latte]

The mirror did not have a purpose. A crafter may have had a purpose for it. A utilizer may have had a purpose for it.

Whether there is a crafter is a discussion that I'm not particularily keen on discussing here.

We are in the category of those who may utilize it nowadays, I guess [:

[Monte314]

I suppose for the purposes of this thread we are talking about macro-evlotion, and operating under the assumption that it has actually occurred (though 150 years of research still holds the elucidation of the underlying mechanisms for such a process in suspense). Very well.

I claim that evolution has a very clear purpose; it is the same purpose it had when it was CREATED: to provide a purely naturalistic explanation for the observed variety of lifeforms.