Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

Most of the hard science crowd I've run into here on ATS don't like to give any meanng beyond maybe 'survival of the fittest' to Evolution.

Once you give it meaning it sounds to them like you are advocating a supernatural, even Creationist, agenda - And most of them see no compromise betrween their basically Atheistic Evolution and the theism of Creationists.

My view does not propose to completely settlle the issue - But let's see if there is another hypothesis that may satisfy at least some.

You see I am not a Theist but can not accept a universe that is meaningless - If science teaches us nothing else, it shows all of nature is full of meaning
- meaning is at the root of all that exists - from a meaningless and empty universe nothing could come and nothing could deveop or evolve.

So I ask you mister Evolutionist and you mister Creationist to look again - See that what we are observing, what we are a part of is a process
with observable patterns of design [Intelligent Design ???] - But not necessarily in a religious sense - Intelligent Design does not prove an 'intelligent desiger !!!

So this brings me back to the theory I've promoted here on ATS in the past:

1. Evoulution, if it is really happening can not be completely random - The Word Evolution itself indicates meaning.

2. And if Evolution is happening it must always have had some meaning beginning with the formation of the first living cell and its reproduction into
two cells.

3. Therefor we can re-examine all of Evolution and what it creates and calculate where from and where to

a reply to: AlienView
The one does not exclude the other. You could seed a planet with life and evolution would take over.

1.) Nothing in the world is random, it just appears like that because we lack the information and oversight. Imagine you have a set of rules, like physic laws, nothing will be true random. Thinking about it, the big challenge would also be calculating the expanding universes rate and positions back then. It's kind of hard to pinpoint something back in time when you are like on a sheet of latex that get's spread out slowly in all directions faster than the light.

2) I agree

3) See 1).

a reply to: AlienView

I have experienced the presence of God three times in three far-flung locations on the planet.

Shplain dat ... and you'll have your answer, I'm sure.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: AlienView

I have experienced the presence of God three times in three far-flung locations on the planet.

Shplain dat ... and you'll have your answer, I'm sure.

Your interpretation of what you experienced is inaccurate? (not being a douche)

A lot of religious folk swear they can feel God in their heart, and that he is communicating with them. Whereas isn't it possible that they could be experiencing a 'nice feeling' about something they 'believe' is divine?

The theory of evolution stems from human interpretation of the world they investigate.

What I am saying? I don't know.

originally posted by: FinallyAwake

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: AlienView

I have experienced the presence of God three times in three far-flung locations on the planet.

Shplain dat ... and you'll have your answer, I'm sure.

Your interpretation of what you experienced is inaccurate? (not being a douche)

A lot of religious folk swear they can feel God in their heart, and that he is communicating with them. Whereas isn't it possible that they could be experiencing a 'nice feeling' about something they 'believe' is divine?

I fully accept the skepticism. Further, I'm not here to proselytize. /disclaimer

I 'know' what I experienced. Look forward to it happening again. If you're there with me ... then you'll know too.

ETA: Not a religious person, btw. Religion does make some respectable attempts to govern societies. But, the parts about God (and his demands on us) ... not how I would interpret my experiences at all.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: FinallyAwake

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: AlienView

I have experienced the presence of God three times in three far-flung locations on the planet.

Shplain dat ... and you'll have your answer, I'm sure.

Your interpretation of what you experienced is inaccurate? (not being a douche)

A lot of religious folk swear they can feel God in their heart, and that he is communicating with them. Whereas isn't it possible that they could be experiencing a 'nice feeling' about something they 'believe' is divine?

I fully accept the skepticism. Further, I'm not here to proselytize. /disclaimer

I 'know' what I experienced. Look forward to it happening again. If you're there with me ... then you'll know too.

ETA: Not a religious person, btw. Religion does make some respectable attempts to govern societies. But, the parts about God (and his demands on us) ... not how I would interpret my experiences at all.

Ahhhh you're coming from the spiritual side? That's a whole new ball game if so.

The mutations/variations that have occurred in our DNA (and still are occurring) have been partially influenced by the radiation of long dead stars, radiation that has been traveling across the vacuum of space for vast stretches of time to eventually bombard our planet and the life on it. These stars went nova before our species was even a thing. Pair that with the realization that all of the carbon that makes up life as we know it also came from dying stars and it's almost as if our entire experience is the afterlife of stars.

It's not that there is any kind of "plan" and I don't think that the word "random" really works, but there is almost a cosmic conversation happening within our own cells.


"We are a way for the universe to know itself."
~Carl Sagan

a reply to: AlienView

Your post echoes something I was reading a few days ago about poststructalism in science.

First, let's clarify what evolution is. It's the outcome of natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" ensures that the genes most fitted to their environment are the ones most likely to be passed on to the next generation.

The cumulative effect of that filtering is evolution. It is the effect, not the cause.

TDDA is right that nothing is random. Natural selection occurs within certain general parameters (eg the composition of the atmosphere, the wavelength of sunlight, the strength of the earth's gravity) and certain local parameters (rainfall, composition of the soil). However, random genetic mutations occur; some will help the organism adapt, some will be neutral, some will be counterproductive.

In short, the mutations are random but the process that determines what happens to the organism is not.

It all goes squirrely when, as you rightly say, " The Word Evolution itself indicates meaning." The word evolution has no direct point of reference in nature. It is a floating signifier, it's meaning comes from us, from what we've agreed it means and the words around it. Everything it implies and indicates, everything it infers, comes from us.

That cuts much deeper than it seems. Darwin didn't pull his ideas out of his ear; they came via the Ancient Greeks, the liberal humanists, Descartes, his wife, his Episcopalian faith, his time on the Beagle, and his garden at Down House.

Everyone who has built on, remodellled, and tried to knock down Darwin's work also carries those influences, although their direct influence is greatly diminished. Had Darwin not been an Episcopalian, had Aristotle decided to be a farmer instead, the whole thing would have been very different.

Ah, says a hard nosed scientist, like the tree that falls in the forest when no one is listening, evolution is true no matter what we think. Thing is, that brings us back to the words. His "true", his "evolution" are as socially constructed as my "Need You Bad is the best Ted Nugent song".

In short, because I hear my turntable calling now, mutation is a random directionless phenonemenon and natural selection is how that randomness plays out - but only within evolution's own frame of reference. Beyond that, in the "real world" (for want of a better phrase), it's completely loaded with meaning.

And that's before we even start considering our own personal beliefs.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

I've just wheresthebody's post.

Yes, the randomness of mutations is determined by the laws of chemistry and physics as well, so they are not completely totally and utterly random.

"We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
back to the garden"

originally posted by: wheresthebody
The mutations/variations that have occurred in our DNA (and still are occurring) have been partially influenced by the radiation of long dead stars, radiation that has been traveling across the vacuum of space for vast stretches of time to eventually bombard our planet and the life on it. These stars went nova before our species was even a thing. Pair that with the realization that all of the carbon that makes up life as we know it also came from dying stars and it's almost as if our entire experience is the afterlife of stars.

This 👆

🌟

a reply to: FinallyAwake

Stars became humans eating cabbage.

a reply to: AlienView

1. Evoulution, if it is really happening can not be completely random - The Word Evolution itself indicates meaning.


Evolution DOES NOT indicate meaning. It indicates CHANGE OVER TIME - the accumulation of tiny changes. That is all.

What is random is the tiny changes, in biology that means mutations. But there is an equally important process for evolution in biology that is not random: selection. Repeat: In BIOLOGY, mutation IS random; Selection (natural or breeding, doesn't matter) IS NOT random. Mutations supply the pool of possibilities that selection can pick from - and that picking is not random, many possibilities are tried, many discarded, and some kept.

In geology, the tiny changes are erosion, plate movements, volcanoes, etc. In cosmology, the tiny changes are movements in particles due to gravity, expanding space, collisions, etc. These tiny changes are random, and the outcomes are is constrained by probabilities, which is the conceptual equivalent to biological selection.

Everything is changing all the time. Evolution is a FEATURE of the universe, of existence itself. The universe IS change, existence IS change. Time itself is defined in terms of change - if there is no change, there is no time; if no time, there is no universe, no existence.

2. And if Evolution is happening it must always have had some meaning beginning with the formation of the first living cell and its reproduction into two cells.
I think you are looking at it backwards. As I said above, Evolution is a feature of the universe, it has no intrinsic meaning beyond the certainty that change is the fabric of existence, therefore the universe has the meaning we give to it. Evolution is beautiful, transcendent, awe-inspiring. What more meaning do you need beyond that grandeur, that beauty? If some people choose to use God as a shortcut to comprehending that beauty, that's OK until they mistake the map for the territory.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Yes, the randomness of mutations is determined by the laws of chemistry and physics as well, so they are not completely totally and utterly random.

The chemistry and physics is not random. Chemistry and physics are what they are - there are only certain chemical reactions, certain bonds between atoms, certain energy levels that can enter equilibrium. But that has nothing to do with what is a random mutation.

There are trillions of of ways the DNA building blocks can be altered by a mutation and which one is altered is completely random. Which one gets zapped by a cosmic ray, which one doesn't bond properly because there is nicotine nearby or DDT residue that makes it twist incorrectly. What ever.

The point is not that carbon and oxygen and hydrogen and other atoms only have a few ways to join together - its which molecules get changed.

a reply to: rnaa

What is random is the tiny changes, in biology that means mutations. But there is an equally important process for evolution in biology that is not random: selection. Repeat: In BIOLOGY, mutation IS random;

Even those tiny changes are not random as the environment is the influencing factor. Say you have a degenerate line of evolution from one species, that wasn't random. The mechanisms that act on the evolution are influenced by the environment.

The DNA and RNA have their own set of rules, everything happening on a cellular basis is predetermined from then on. Disturbing factors that lead to change in the DNA what we call evolution aren't random.

Just one example: That cosmic ray striking and damaging a DNA strand that will later become the first cell of a new lineage, was on it's way long before that DNA strand aligned with it's course. It wasn't random that the animal walked into that path, because the environment influenced it to be there.

It's like a pool-table, you set the balls in motion and from then on it's physics. This can be interrupted by outside forces, like someone shifting the table to one side. Future isn't completely determined but there are only so much pathways that are possible, set by physic laws.

I agree with the rest you wrote though!


Add: Can you give an example of something true random that we full understand? Even in quantum theory (that is just that, an incomplete theory) where there is lot's of talk about randomness of things popping in and out of existence, we say it's random because we didn't see the pattern yet.

When we call something "random" is really the insight we are clueless about the relationships between parameters, parameters we might not even be aware of or can't measure them. Like a photon will transfer energy into a atom and move it, like measuring voltage or ampere, you can not have both.

These mechanism might ultimately prevent us from ever understanding the universe completely. Let alone different additional dimensions we are not able to perceive. Carl Sagans 2D land explanation really helps wrapping the head around this one.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: rnaa

Even those tiny changes are not random as the environment is the influencing factor. Say you have a degenerate line of evolution from one species, that wasn't random.

What does the 'degenerate' mean in this context?

The mechanisms that act on the evolution are influenced by the environment.

Yes, of course.

The mutation takes place in an environment that produces a boundary on what change CAN occur. In the case of the cosmic ray we need to be in an environment where cosmic rays can reach us and zap some of our DNA. But which of us is the lucky one that got in front of that Cosmic Ray that happened to zap just the right sperm cell (or egg) at just the right time, at just the right chromosome, at just the right energy level? All that positioning is indeed random - beyond any reasonable definition of the word random.

What is not random is the filtering process that selects which of those mutations are beneficial, neutral or harmful. It doesn't matter whether you are discussing natural selection or purposeful breeding - the concept is the same. The random changes that allow the organism to survive in the environment will expand through the population generation after generation. In natural selection the environment 'dictates' what is beneficial or not, in breeding the breeder does that.

originally posted by: FinallyAwake

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: AlienView

I have experienced the presence of God three times in three far-flung locations on the planet.

Shplain dat ... and you'll have your answer, I'm sure.

Your interpretation of what you experienced is inaccurate? (not being a douche)

A lot of religious folk swear they can feel God in their heart, and that he is communicating with them. Whereas isn't it possible that they could be experiencing a 'nice feeling' about something they 'believe' is divine?

Ummm...please forgive...what you claim is usually the position held by the non-experiencer...

Not having experienced on a personal level would naturally engender a healthy skepticism...

However...nothing in those comments negates or defines or offers explanation factually...to that which was experienced...yet you were not a party to...

Skepticism is healthy and good...yet...when faced with an honest...open minded rigorous pursuit which lays aside any prejudicial thought matrices...Strange and inexplicable events and participation’s occur...

Now...how the individual chooses to label these utterly amazing experiences...is totally up to the individual and their level of comprehension as they continue along their unique path perspective...


In conclusion...it is entirely valid for you to state what you have stated...and it remain true for you...but that does not in any way negate the experiences of any other...
Both positions can and always will exist co-equally and within their own merit...




YouSir

a reply to: rnaa

What does the 'degenerate' mean in this context?

An example for an outside influence that damages DNA that produces a lineage that can not sustain in nature for long, thus building one of the foundations of evolution that we talk about. Nothing like "moron", I have a feeling you understood it wrong.

The natural mechanism could also produce a degenerate eveolutionary stage. Degenerate in relationship to the former evolutionary step. It' all relative to each other. Imagine a lioness is born with a better set of muscle groups. Whatever the reason. These muscles are stronger than her fellow lioness muscles but they need way more energy. On first look, the muscles are a great new feature, just that the lioness collapses and dies in the sun before it could bear puppies because it overheated at some point and the environment didn't allow follow up evolutionary changes like a intrinsic warning system for the lioness that she is overheating quickly.


I disagree, nothing is random. That does not mean we can not influence the system or environment but it isn't random. No thoughts are random, that's a huge misconception.

I challenge you to find me one example that is proven random. Just one example.

a reply to: FinallyAwake

Your interpretation of what you experienced is inaccurate? (not being a douche)
A lot of religious folk swear they can feel God in their heart, and that he is communicating with them. Whereas isn't it possible that they could be experiencing a 'nice feeling' about something they 'believe' is divine?

he didn't say feeling, he said experienced. could have been a action, something he prayed for, something that he didn't pray for but was delivered, rescued, saved (choose your own word) from, or one of many other things beside a feeling.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

They always either take all things to literally or not metaphoricaly at all.

There's a communication barrier.

Why are we so f* up?