It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2021 @ 08:53 PM
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

The natural mechanism could also produce a degenerate eveolutionary stage. Degenerate in relationship to the former evolutionary step. It' all relative to each other.

So you mean 'degenerate to a previous condition'? Change is change (and change is time). The hand of time moves in one direction (in human experience) and one direction only. If a grandchild looks exactly like his grandfather, he has not become his grandfather. Even in the unlikely (statistically extraordinarily unlikely but not 100.00000000000000000000000000000000000000...% impossible) that DNA was changed from Grandfather to Father and then miraculously, every one of those DNA changes was somehow changed back to the exact Grandfather state in the Grandson - the Grandson is STILL the Grandson, NOT the Grandfather. And the grandson is different from his father. 'Degenerate' is an inappropriate loaded word. The correct word is 'change'.

You are correct about it all being relative to each other, though. Grandfather -> change -> Father -> change -> Grandson. There is a change in the father's DNA RELATIVE to the grandfather's DNA. There is a change in the grandson's DNA RELATIVE to the father's DNA. There is always change from generation to generation. If that results in the DNA state changing to a state that has already been 'seen' in the ancestors, it is still a change from one generation to the next, not a reversion or going backwards - there is no backwards, just next.

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 (you meant cubs) 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.

On the other hand, if she has better muscles she might just be able to out hunt her non-mutated colleagues and have no trouble with chasing them away from the shady spots and watering holes.

But what you describe is exactly the point of natural selection and how it operates. As you describe, this mutation was not beneficial to that population of lions, mutations are not always good, they are not always bad, they are more often than not completely neutral. Natural selection has filtered out that non-beneficial mutation.

If the mutation had occurred in a population of lions that lived in a cooler climate perhaps she would not have died in the sun, her well muscled offspring may have come to dominate the population and she may have been the progenitor of an eventual new species. Note that she, herself, is not a new species, nor are her children or children's children. But if her descendants don't mix back into a warm climate population then maybe it would eventually be different enough (after many more mutations) to be called a new species.

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.

We are not talking about 'random thoughts' even if I do disagree with you on that point. We are talking about changes in DNA.

Changes that occur in a cell when it divides are random. The mutation IS random, there is no direction, no controlling influence that decides what mutation will occur in the DNA state. There are 'rules' about WHAT mutations are possible, but not about WHICH of the possible mutations actually occur.

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

The proof you want to find here is probably above my pay grade and I'm not going down that rabbit hole. But I will provide a possible minor example of a random event.

1) Go to a large library with a friend, but don't tell the friend what you are doing.
2) Blind fold yourself.
3) Have a friend ask a stranger in the library to pick a number larger than zero and less than 61.
4) Have a friend go off and browse the library for that number of minutes.
5) Have the friend select a book, magazine, document or whatever during their browse and have them come back to you with it.
6) Pick a page from the document or book or magazine and put your finger down somewhere (you are still blindfolded).
7) If you have not put your finger on a map location, repeat steps 1 through 6 with a different friend until you have found a location on a map.
8) Now you have a map location go to that location in the real world. Ask any stranger there where there is a beach or simply a large pile of sand nearby. Do this three times or until you have three different sandy spots.
9) Ask a fourth stranger to pick a number, one, two, or three.
10) Use that number to select which sandy spot to use.
11) Have a friend blindfold you and take you to the selected sandy spot.
12) Have the friend sit you down on the sandy spot and spin you around a couple of times on the spot.
13) Stand up. Sit down. Standup turn around a bit. Sit down.
14) Grab a handful of sand.
15) Drop the handful of sand - do not wipe off any grains of sand that happen to stick to your hand.
16) Pick up another handful of sand with your other hand, and then drop it again.
17) Rub your hands together to shake of most of the sticking grains.
18) If there are now no grains of sand sticking to either hand, repeat steps 13 to 17 until you have at least one grain still stuck to your hand.
19) You are still blindfolded, but find one grain of sand on one of your hands and pick it up with a finger.

You have now RANDOMLY selected one grain of sand from all the grains of sand in existence.

Notice that that algorithm is rather strictly defined - that is the methodology to find that grain is absolutely not random (silly, yes, but not random) - but there is absolutely no way to have predicted which specific grain of sand you would choose and there is no way that you could reproduce the exact outcome by following the algorithm again.

While there is a finite (but extremely large) number ways that a chromosome can be affected by a mutation, exactly which mutation occurs is completely random. And there are ALWAYS changes from one generation to the next. ALWAYS.

edit on 10/1/2021 by rnaa because: grammar, clarification

edit on 10/1/2021 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2021 @ 12:41 AM
Chaos theory


"Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the study of chaos — dynamical systems whose apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.[1][2] Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[3] The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[4] A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas can cause a hurricane in China.[5]

Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to errors in measurements or due to rounding errors in numerical computation, can yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[6] This can happen even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior follows a unique evolution[7] and is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[8] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[9][10] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[11]

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future".,fractals%2C%20and%20self%2Dorganization.

Understand something - I was not suggesting that the existent state of biological life is frozen, dead, and/or completely predicable - I was suggesting that the existent matrix is not a random chance set-up. It is basef upon reason and design,
and the fact that we do not fully understand the reason or the design does not mean it does not exist.

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”
― Max Planck

edit on 11-1-2021 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2021 @ 02:54 PM
a reply to: rnaa

So you have nothing.

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 02:42 AM
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

This is probably the oldest question of mankind. So lets have some fun shall we!!!!

Now, if this is the case, does it make sense to claim that the purpose of life is whatever God had in mind when he created it?

No, it doesn't. Even if God exists, it can't be the case that life has a purpose. Here's why.

A god who performs acts of creation is an agent, and to be an agent one must, minimally, be alive. So, if God exists, he must be a living god (unsurprisingly, he is described as such in the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). But if God is a living god, then we are confronted with a problem. Life had to exist God can't have created life, because God must already be alive in order to create anything at all.

So if life already existed prior to creation then a creator could not give it purpose or meaning.

Ok how was that would Aristotle be proud? I suggest next we tackle the chicken or the egg shall we?

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 03:04 AM
You seem to be referring to some kind of purpose with the word "meaning", although it's a bit unclear what you're actually referring to, since the debate between those favoring natural selection as an explanation and those favoring design, when the subject of purpose or meaning comes up, usually centers around the purpose or meaning of life, not evolution.

The arguments in favor of design on the one hand and of natural selection on the other have frequently been refined, elaborated on, and updated. And both sides of the subject have greatly influenced what people believe about purpose​—or lack of purpose—​in the universe. What you believe might well influence how purposeful you feel your life is. How so?

The Logical Consequences of Darwinism

Belief in Darwin’s theory has led many sincere people to conclude that their existence is devoid of real purpose. If the cosmos and everything in it are the product of spontaneous combinations of elements after the primordial big bang, then there can be no real purpose to life. The late Nobel Prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod stated: “Man knows at last that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe from which he emerged by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.”

A similar thought is expressed by Oxford professor of chemistry Peter William Atkins, who declares: “I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless.”

By no means do all scientists agree with that outlook. And for very good reasons. But it is inherrent in evolutionary philosophy, you can't really take it out as you're attempting to do because it's a logical consequence of attributing the universe and the life in it to a great cosmic accident and evolution, i.e. the product of spontaneous combinations of elements after the primordial big bang. If that is the case, there can be no real purpose to life. Even if you switch the subject to 'evolution has meaning' instead (what does that even mean anyway?).
edit on 14-1-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 03:27 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese
Ok how was that would Aristotle be proud? I suggest next we tackle the chicken or the egg shall we?

I'm not sure, but I am somewhat curious, did you say the above because you were under the impression you said something clever or profound, or something that settles* the issue you raised with sound logical reasoning (or that that might be the case, something that might make the philosopher and Mother Nature/Gaia-worshipper Aristotle proud; *: so that we can move on to the next subject)?
edit on 14-1-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 04:23 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

Why am I not surprised someone got lost on a philosophical conversation.

As aristotle would said

Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence. And happiness depends upon ourselves.

Wise men speak when they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something.

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: rnaa
You need 19 steps to arrive at something you call "random", when it isnt' random at all. It just looks random to you because of the blindfold, you were out of the information loop. The steps that you described, the fact that you can even describe them, excludes randomness.

Please cite an actual physical law (not theory) that supports true randomness. You can't. Because look up random number generators.

You wouldn't had have to waste your time coming up with this 19 step fantasy where you trick yourself into believing this. I still challenge you to find me an actual example of randomness or eat crow because you are spreading disinformation.

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 05:50 PM
Does making tasks harder and rejecting Satan's tools have any?

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 07:03 PM
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I guess this all depends on your dfinition or random.

websters says

made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision:

So with that difinition a coin toss would be random.

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 08:30 PM
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I said the algorithm was silly and not random.

The resultant grain of sand was random, and in fact would have been random if you had just gone to your back yard and picked up a grain of sand from your kids sandbox.

Randomness has nothing to do with the 'algorithm' used to pick something, even if the algorithm itself is a more or less random choice. It has nothing to do with limits on the pool of choices. As long as there is a pool of more than one choice and nothing limiting that final choice it is random.

Random means unconnected to the previous result. In statistics, which is the applicable sense when we are talking about random mutations in biology, it means specifically "of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen."

Picking up one particular grain of sand from the beach is random, limited only by your reach or willingness to dig. Each choice it is not connected in any way to the grain of sand you picked up the last time you were at the beach and every grain has an equal chance at selection. There is no way that given the grain of sand you picked up last time, you could predict which grain of sand you pick next time.

A mutation caused by zapping a chromosome by a cosmic ray is completely random. It is random first because not every cosmic ray hits a chromosome, but every one has chance to hit a chromosome. Second a cosmic ray that does hits a chromosome may not hit a chromosome in a sperm or egg cell. Third those that do hit a sperm cell (for example), may not cause a change in an area that produces a mutational change in the organism. Fourth a sperm cell with a mutational chromosome change may not be 'the one' that fertilizes an egg cell. At each point every 'choice' (hit or no hit, sperm cell or skin cell, etc ) is random because it is not dependent on any previous (similar) 'choice' and all choices have an equal chance of occurring.

Please cite an actual physical law (not theory) that supports true randomness. You can't. Because look up random number generators.

From : Dictionary.Com

1) proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2) Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
3) Building Trades.

(of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
(of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.

We'll ignore number 3.

Number 1 is the ordinary layman's understanding of randomness. Computer random number generators exist in this realm. The term "random number generator" is, in and of itself, an oxymoron. 'Generate' and 'random' are mutually exclusive. Computer 'random number generators" routines are called 'psuedo-random' because they are not truly random, even statistically. (I have coded quite a few psuedo random number generators, for various purposes over the years. The requirement for 'true' randomness is non-existent in computer programs, and the usefulness of complicated psuedo-random generators is often way over stated).

Number 2 is the definition that is meant when discussing random mutations. Statistics.
Of all the possible mutations that can occur in a chromosome, they are all equally possible at any given time. Which one that actually does occur (if any) cannot be determined (in nature) by any algorithm - it cannot be 'generated'.

Random: ALL "choices" are equally likely (and equally unlikely).

Libraries are full of books about why computer algorithms do not produce statistically random numbers, yet every programming language has a random number generator that does 'a pretty good job'.

edit on 14/1/2021 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/1/2021 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 09:48 PM
a reply to: dragonridr

So is that a "yes"? (as an answer to what I was curious about)

The subject of the "purpose of life" is usually speaking specifically of human life, the purpose of our lives, or at the very least, life on earth.

And last time I checked, the claim that God created life is usually (or almost always) about God creating life on earth (cause that's the topic under discussion usually when someone argues for that position, since that's also where we can make physical observations of said life and reason on this empirical evidence). Not his own life as suggested when one interprets that as God creating life in general, the very concept of life, which you then reasoned includes his own life, therefore, "we are confronted with a problem" and "God can't have created life", according to you.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument [God creating life or something about the purpose of life], whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion [God creating life on earth, or something about the purpose of human life, our lives] was not addressed or properly refuted.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Source: Straw man - Wikipedia (between brackets was mine, applying it to your comment)
edit on 14-1-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2021 @ 11:59 PM
Sometimes I think it is meaning that evolves.

Like the males and the female.

So when I drink too much and pass out, with a male it is OK.
We get up and pretend it never happened.

With female is like she want phone number, and address, and baby and wedding.

So how come the meaning of the male is very different to the meaning of the female?

(Joke - Borat sends regards.)

But it is true, if meaning evolves with our physical brains or intellect - then how would we ever know anything greater, or even recognize anything outside it?
edit on 15-1-2021 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2021 @ 01:13 AM
Call it [all that happened, is happening, will happen, and all that exists] whatever you want - Define it with religion, science, or anyway you want - Bit I defy anyone to take the 'meaning' out of it.

Show me just one thing that can be said to exist without meaning

In this way science has replaced religion and magic for explanations of everything
- nothing can exist without some meaing to its existence.

Meaning is an inherint program in the processes of the cognitive mind - It is an irrevocable part of mind and consciousness.

So even though some want to say Evolution has no meaning - that in itself is an expression of meaning

So the deeper philosophical question might be 'What is the meaning of meaning'

But we can never say 'meaningless' as no meaning, like absolutely nothing, it can not exist.

And if something doesn't exist......??????????????????????

posted on Jan, 15 2021 @ 05:28 AM
Yes - be honest.
Honestly evolution has little meaning compared to the Vedas.

posted on Jan, 15 2021 @ 05:45 AM
You're on the chair, do you believe in evolution or the Vedas?

Sorry, I believe the Vedas.

That answer is true.

posted on Jan, 15 2021 @ 05:55 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

You cant create something that is already in existence, Unless its the internet and your Al Gore. If something is alive it can create living things however it cant create life it can only recreate life. Works the same with the universe If something exists in the universe it canot create it. If it isnt in the universe it can not effect things in it.

posted on Jan, 15 2021 @ 11:24 AM
a reply to: rnaa

The resultant grain of sand was random

No it wasn't, you were out of the loop information wise. It's still physics at work.

A mutation caused by zapping a chromosome by a cosmic ray is completely random.

It isn't. It's not magic or random, the way the cosmic ray interacts with the cell or DNA is bound to physical laws. Just because we don't have them all figured out, doesn't make it random.

The third time now I challenge you to find me something random. Not a dictionary entry or semantic, not your 19 step program, something with substance. Do you know that if you had the solution, that you would be rich in seconds?

If you are right, proof me wrong with something accepted by science. I will wait and until then, you have to support your claims with actual evidence. It's very cut and clear. I will wait.
edit on 15.1.2021 by ThatDamnDuckAgain because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2021 @ 11:30 AM
a reply to: dragonridr
This is the initial statement of that member

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;

I disagree vehemently, that member still has to prove it. Moving the goal posts to semantics isn't going to cut it. For fun, I just typed it into google, although a bit ashamed.

Are mutations random?

Short answer
The claim is unclear but is essentially misleading and wrong. However, IMO, for lay people, it is a good approximation to just think that mutations are random!

Here, on Understanding evolution is a great source of information on what it means to say that mutations are random

posted on Jan, 15 2021 @ 04:54 PM
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

The third time now I challenge you to find me something random. Not a dictionary entry or semantic

If you don't have a definition of what you mean by 'random', how can you possibly state that there is nothing that is random?

I have answered your question by demonstrated exactly what is meant by biologists (and all scientists, really) when they describe something as random. They are using a very specific definition, and that definition is exactly what is meant when they discuss random mutation.

It doesn't matter that you have a personal definition (or not) of what the word means. If you wish to argue against the scientific concept of random mutation, you have to use the same definition of the word 'random' that science uses.

So at this point you are just a troll fishing for attention from contrarians. Prove me wrong.

P.S. I tend not to respond to identified trolls.

edit on 15/1/2021 by rnaa because: grammar and ps

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in