*ahem*
exactly. Failures to adapt and successes to adapt. So, uh... yeah. Life adapts. Non-adapted parts die. Life goes on, being better adapted.
The purpose Life has
- Thread starter Vkothii
- Start date
exactly. Failures to adapt and successes to adapt. So, uh... yeah. Life adapts. Non-adapted parts die. Life goes on, being better adapted.
So, the purpose of life is to reproduce, but, what is the purpose of life?
Biological. Apparently. That's what seems to confuse most people.
Hey... do you suppose life might, in the grander scheme and in the "spiritual sense" be moving towards change requiring less energy? It would go together with creating diversity - it allows for much more diversity, more effectively. More precicely in accordance to what we need to adapt.
So in the spiritul sense you can say we grow more powerful and we can change more. And it doesn't say we MUST use the power in any given way, leaving in the chaos/purposelessness factor. In the biological sense you can say we get to adapt and therefore survive even better like that.
Last edited:
Well, I can be a little nitpicky and say the purpose of the rock is to find a way in which it is affected by the least amount of energy - ie be as close to the ground as possible and give in to any force that's pushing it. Which is why it will fall down when you pick it up.
Neurologists and behaviourists studying memory seem to have uncovered something about the way we human (primates) remember stuff. Our long term memory is more stable than what they call short-term memory.Aviar said:
Other primates haven't evolved as good a version (maybe because of all those extra neurons in our cortex). It appears to be more stable entropically, and doesn't need as much energy to persist. It might have something to do with plasticity.
Maybe we are evolving towards a more stable form, our long-term memory apparatus appears to be. IOW, we remember for longer, and with less effort, than other mammals (with mammal brains).
Read up om it
For what purpose?
As I say, biological evolution is not random; it's due to random genetic changes which persist. That's two things: persistence due to selection, and variability, due to "random" mutations or genetic drift, or whatever you want to label it, it's gradual change and adaptation, and there's this advantage thing too.
Random genetic changes do not persist all by themselves. If lifeforms weren't organised, they'd be all over the place, literally. I don't need to go and read anything.
What's to read? Do you think you understand any of the stuff you've read? If you do, can you explain it, or are you happy with telling people they've got it all wrong, and should go read some book or other?
Do you have a version of "selection" in regard to Evolution? Can you explain how it functions as a "driver" of the process? Can you project something other than a suggestion to "go read up" about it (which activity I think I can see a need for, let's say, here and there).
As I say, biological evolution is not random; it's due to random genetic changes which persist. That's two things: persistence due to selection, and variability, due to "random" mutations or genetic drift, or whatever you want to label it, it's gradual change and adaptation, and there's this advantage thing too.
Random genetic changes do not persist all by themselves. If lifeforms weren't organised, they'd be all over the place, literally. I don't need to go and read anything.
What's to read? Do you think you understand any of the stuff you've read? If you do, can you explain it, or are you happy with telling people they've got it all wrong, and should go read some book or other?
Do you have a version of "selection" in regard to Evolution? Can you explain how it functions as a "driver" of the process? Can you project something other than a suggestion to "go read up" about it (which activity I think I can see a need for, let's say, here and there).
Last edited:
Your qustion makes no sense. That is why I again suggest you read up on evolution if you wish to understand the theory. The alternative is to continue asking questions based on you misunderstanding.
Last edited:
You mean this one:Myles said:
Do you have a version of "selection" in regard to Evolution? Which means: "can you explain what selection is?"
So do you have some explanation, or can I assume that you're just ranting?
P.S. I understand the process (of Biological evolution). But you don't, or you haven't posted anything that suggests more than a vague grasp.
Why do people like you insist that they understand some "scientific theory", but struggle to show that they, in fact, do understand? Then they resort to "you need to read about it". Another pointless "debate", about who knows what.
But clearly, a lot of people don't understand it at all; maybe it's too simple an idea?
Last edited:
Not so. Life that didn't try to extend itself wouldn't exist. To what end does it behave like this? It doesn't know, there is no other way to be. We are a cascade of cause and effect that can have no precise knowledge of it's future state.
An individual can chose a purpose. That is, I think, a great freedom we enjoy. If everyone's purpose is different, there is no unified purpose.
I still don't get how that implies that purposeful organisms don't or can't have purpose? If a star gives off visible radiation -we see it. It isn't invisible as well...?
Choice is advantageous: choosing to expend energy (from a limited resource), or conserve energy (hibernation, bacterial sporulation, or just "inaction"), is part of Evolution too.spidergoat said:
Yes, I understand what is meant by natural selection buytyour posts show such a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory that it would take pages and pages to explain, with no guarantee that you would inderstand. Too much like hard work,
There are plenty of accesible, introductory texts available. What have you got against educating yourself ?
Here, I'll just explain what selection is: selection is the differential reproduction of life forms that vary in fitness for their environment. If you start out with 500 of life form A and 500 of life form B, and life form A lives twice as long as life form B but they reproduce at the same rate, then over time there will come to be many more of life form A than life form B. In a world with limited resources, this means that B can come to be blocked out of things like food (being far fewer), and thus die off. However, if through mutation a B organism becomes 4 times better at getting those resources than any other organism, this organism will be highly successful, reproduce much, and the trait will (may) begin to propagate. This in turn could lead to B organisms blocking out A organisms for resources, and thus causing the A population to drop and the B population to increase. This is evolution.
There are no mysteries here. It's as well grounded as the basis of the second law of thermodynamics in probabilistic microstates. You can "find meaning" in this process if you really want, but we (or any complex life) are just, as Dawkins said it, "survival machines for the genes inside us." These genes have no purpose. The weren't put there by a god, endowed with intention, or by any means "care" what happens. They're merely slaves to probability. The math doesn't just enable evolution, by the way, but actually requires evolution to arise.
There are no mysteries here. It's as well grounded as the basis of the second law of thermodynamics in probabilistic microstates. You can "find meaning" in this process if you really want, but we (or any complex life) are just, as Dawkins said it, "survival machines for the genes inside us." These genes have no purpose. The weren't put there by a god, endowed with intention, or by any means "care" what happens. They're merely slaves to probability. The math doesn't just enable evolution, by the way, but actually requires evolution to arise.
Last edited:
-variation due to a range of representative forms, as stated. Varying ability to deal with the environment. That's one of the key parts of the theory.frisco said:
If A and B aren't co-evolving, but competing for the same set of resources, sure.frisco said:
- are you still talking about species A here? Or do you mean a "different kind of" B, that competes better than any other A or B..?frisco said:
OK, but competition between species and between members of the same species has been covered way back in the start of this thread. So this organism, this B species, gets a mutation that gives it an advantage? Does it get the advantage by having the gene or does it get the advantage by expressing the gene?frisco said:
Obviously, when it uses the thing -just like a screwdriver or a chisel, say. Another word for screwdriver is "tool".
Does expressing a gene have purpose? Does the organism care what happens?frisco said:
Genes are tools, that get used. Now someone tell me organisms don't do this, and that using a tool isn't adapting a tool.
Last edited:
you mean like genes that encode for something like curiosity or sex drive? such genes may not possess purpose but they encode for purpose (my purpose). i am not my genes and blueprints dont make blue buildings.
our purpose is encoded in genes which themselves have no purpose. therefore you say our purpose has no purpose. that is a fallacy. GENES have no purpose. WE have purpose. PURPOSE itself requires no purpose because it IS purpose.
Last edited: