Long ago, in a lecture room far away, my Bio prof once said: "Life is just chemistry". (a Dr. Daniel, wonder what he's been up to?)

Well, a reaction in a test-tube is chemistry. Is Life a test-tube?:bugeye:

I would say that Life is chemistry and the structure that the chemistry "plays out" on. Without the structure, the chemistry wouldn't be purposive, in the sense that the purpose of life and its chemistry is (just) a way of harnessing the nature of energy to disperse (scatter), by trying to "un-disperse" it, or gather energy.

It can't push energy back uphill, but it can capitalise on its tendency to move downhill, by slowing the flow, so to speak. It gets to the bottom eventually, but the "idea" is to replicate before it does.
Life has managed to cling to the hillside, but the inefficient thermodynamic processes, and cycles involved mean the "slowdown" only lets it sit so high. So it gets bigger, or it gets together, and manages to appear like its gone a bit higher, but this isn't really true, because of the (thermal) limit that things like enzymes, and the surface tension and conformality involved have. Life "wastes" a lot of energy.

It's always a trade-off: energy has to be "gathered", and also used to gather. Expending and conserving energy is the process. Unique "agents", like enzymes and electron donors and acceptors (co-enzymes), and especially the structures they maintain and function within and as a part of, is the "basis". Life builds itself a test-tube, and rides in it (down the hill)...:cool:

Long ago, in a lecture room far away, my Bio prof once said: "Life is just chemistry". (a Dr. Daniel, wonder what he's been up to?)

Well, a reaction in a test-tube is chemistry. Is Life a test-tube?:bugeye:

I would say that Life is chemistry and the structure that the chemistry "plays out" on. Without the structure, the chemistry wouldn't be purposive, in the sense that the purpose of life and its chemistry is (just) a way of harnessing the nature of energy to disperse (scatter), by trying to "un-disperse" it, or gather energy.

It can't push energy back uphill, but it can capitalise on its tendency to move downhill, by slowing the flow, so to speak. It gets to the bottom eventually, but the "idea" is to replicate before it does.
Life has managed to cling to the hillside, but the inefficient thermodynamic processes, and cycles involved mean the "slowdown" only lets it sit so high. So it gets bigger, or it gets together, and manages to appear like its gone a bit higher, but this isn't really true, because of the (thermal) limit that things like enzymes, and the surface tension and conformality involved have. Life "wastes" a lot of energy.

It's always a trade-off: energy has to be "gathered", and also used to gather. Expending and conserving energy is the process. Unique "agents", like enzymes and electron donors and acceptors (co-enzymes), and especially the structures they maintain and function within and as a part of, is the "basis". Life builds itself a test-tube, and rides in it (down the hill)...:cool:

I agree with this mostly.
I don't agree with your notion that life has a purpose however.

I don't agree with your notion that life has a purpose however.OK. Put slightly differently: does life exhibit purposive behaviour? Do lifeforms exhibit behaviour, and is it purposive, or purposeful? This is not asking if Life has a purpose, that's a philosophical issue.

My Biochem lecturer (R.M. Daniel: now a fully-fledged professor, no less), was being a bit off-hand with his comment. Life is more than chemistry in some kind of test-tube, because there's also an information store (genetic material) along with all those cycles and reactions.

DNA/RNA is like a library that gets updated and modified, and maintained (errors are "corrected" with repair enzymes). But we know that genetic material changes over long periods. Variability, of the genetic material, and of the proteins that get produced, is important.
There is, at least in advanced organisms, a lot of material that doesn't appear to have any purpose ("junk" DNA). Although this extra material isn't read and then used to make any proteins, it still gets conserved during mitosis, so the evolutionary process must have some "reason", for faithfully reproducing it. Is it some kind of "ancillary" store, that provides evolution with "raw information"?

DNA/RNA is the store of material that, when it gets transcribed and used to manufacture protein chains, the result is an individual organism, or phenotype.
A phenotype is a mapping, or projection of genetic information. Eukaryotes require a "package" (most prokaryotes have this packaging ability too), that contains the genetic information, and sufficient structure and supporting "chemistry" (including a store of energy), to start up the growth process - replicating itself via cell division (mitosis).

Viral particles are a kind of minimal package of genetic information, with sufficient structure and function to get inside (invade), a cell of a prokaryote or eukaryote. It's a kind of "one-shot" - a virus has just one opportunity, one method and a "reduced" set of genes. If it successfully crosses the barrier (this is where its structure and some of the minimal store of energy gets used), then it simply presents its genetic material, and the now invaded cell will treat this material like any other, and start producing proteins from the viral "information".

Once there is a handful of viral enzymes, the virus can co-opt the cellular replication mechanism, and direct it to produce viral copies (by "inserting" multiple copies of itself into the replication process, with the aid of the viral enzymes). A virus is like a program that ends up diverting the "normal" cellular activity and "making" the cell reproduce viral particles. Eventually, the cell loses the ability to do anything other than reproduce viral genetic information. Once the cell is totally co-opted, it uses up its ability to do anything "normal" and more or less burns out. Cellular death ensues: the cell denatures (bursts), and releases thousands of newly-minted viral particles. A viral infection is like a chain reaction.

There's an information-theoretic side of genetic material, and DNA/RNA "information entropy". Proteomics is also part of the pattern, so it isn't just some combination of nucleotide bases, it's a complex language, or alphabet of messages - there are 20 amino acids, a single gene can yield different variations of protein. Protein folding is important to functionality, so there's a shape "alphabet" too (the folding is believed to be influenced by enzymes). It's a big show, people.

Is a virus a kind of organism that has minimised its "purpose" and structure, in order to be as efficient as possible at cell invasion, because the rest of the process is something that happens courtesy of the host cell? Or is it more likely that viral form and function arose alongside the evolution of the prokaryote/eukaryote line?

one of the main characteristics of life is that it reproduces
one of the byproducts of this characteristic is the emergent property of apparent purposefulness

OK. But I have to ask: is apparent purposeful "behaviour", the same as purposive function? That is, does life function purposefully, or is it that it only "appears to"?

I don't think the distinction actually counts...or there isn't a distinction: i.e. "the property of apparent purposefulness" appears for the straightforward reason that lifeforms are purposeful...?

OK. But I have to ask: is apparent purposeful "behaviour", the same as purposive function? That is, does life function purposefully, or is it that it only "appears to"?

I don't think the distinction actually counts...or there isn't a distinction: i.e. "the property of apparent purposefulness" appears for the straightforward reason that lifeforms are purposeful...?

You have to make the distinction between what looks/is purposeful to us and what actually is purposeful objectively.

I look at it like this: A stone on a hill isn't purposeful, except it might start to roll down the hill, then its apparent purpose is: "to roll". I can roll down a hill, too.
So how is it that we recognise an inanimate object (as not-alive), and we recognise not-inanimate objects, as alive?
What do we discriminate? I'd say it could be connected to the way things move. If a rock or stone rolling down a hill tried to stop rolling, or move back up the hill, that would be "odd", or even "strange". Why isn't it odd or strange if some "organism" does it?

Is a virus a "special" kind of rock or stone, that can "roll" a certain way, or is it a "minimised" lifeform? Is it animate or inanimate "information"?

I look at it like this: A stone on a hill isn't purposeful, except it might start to roll down the hill, then its apparent purpose is: "to roll". I can roll down a hill, too.
So how is it that we recognise an inanimate object (as not-alive), and we recognise not-inanimate objects, as alive?
What do we discriminate? I'd say it could be connected to the way things move. If a rock or stone rolling down a hill tried to stop rolling, or move back up the hill, that would be "odd", or even "strange". Why isn't it odd or strange if some "organism" does it?

Is a virus a "special" kind of rock or stone, that can "roll" a certain way, or is it a "minimised" lifeform? Is it animate or inanimate "information"?

The ability to interact with the environment does not spell purpose.

What is "the ability to interact" with the environment? What does spell purpose?

What is "the ability to interact" with the environment? What does spell purpose?

Nothing spells purpose, or anything you want.

This thread belongs in Philosophy area, not biology. To see what a discussion of chemistry and life should be take a look at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77556

What has chemistry to do with "purpose of life"? All the posts, including the OP, speak more of purpose than biochemistry. Not even one biochemistry process or equation has appeared!

This thread belongs in Philosophy area, not biology. To see what a discussion of chemistry and life should be take a look at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77556

What has chemistry to do with "purpose of life"?All the posts, including the OP, speak more of purpose than biochemistry. Not one biochemistry term or equation has appeared!

Well that's kind of what the disagreement is about.

There is only disagreement if there's a conflict of meaning or interpretation.
Chemistry is interaction. Biochemistry is interaction that "causes" or is "caused by" living things.
Purpose is a problematic word. Most people seem to connect it with some "higher design" concept, then they accuse the person who used it with doing just that; well, that's what usually happens. Stick a pronoun in front of it and suddenly we go straight to the spirit world (without crossing a river, even). Or we're waiting for Santa Claus to arrive.

How do you waste energy?

I look at energy and waste like this, son: a virus doesn't waste any (because it gets a host cell to do the job). A virus only needs to carry enough energy around to get inside, like having the right change for the bus. Ordinary old lifeforms keep handing over too much, or converting it into other currency and back again (in case they need to use it, but if they don't they try to convert it back into a more stable "currency").

Life is chemistry with a purpose.

1) The purpose of life and its chemistry is (just) a way of harnessing the nature of energy to disperse, by trying to "un-disperse" it, or gather energy.
2) There is, at least in advanced organisms, a lot of material that doesn't appear to have any purpose ("junk" DNA). Although this isn't used to make any proteins, it still gets conserved during mitosis, so the evolutionary process must have some "reason", for faithfully reproducing it.
3) Isn't a virus a kind of organism that has minimised its purpose and structure, in order to be as efficient as possible at cell invasion?

And:
The maintenance of genetic material is purposeful, the variability of proteins transcribed from it fulfils the purpose of having diverse functionality (better equipped organisms, able to deal with environmental changes), and reproductive ability.

N'est ce pas?

Life is chemistry with a purpose.

1) The purpose of life and its chemistry is (just) a way of harnessing the nature of energy to disperse, by trying to "un-disperse" it, or gather energy.
2) There is, at least in advanced organisms, a lot of material that doesn't appear to have any purpose ("junk" DNA). Although this isn't used to make any proteins, it still gets conserved during mitosis, so the evolutionary process must have some "reason", for faithfully reproducing it.
3) Isn't a virus a kind of organism that has minimised its purpose and structure, in order to be as efficient as possible at cell invasion?

And:
The maintenance of genetic material is purposeful, the variability of proteins transcribed from it fulfils the purpose of having diverse functionality (better equipped organisms, able to deal with environmental changes), and reproductive ability.

N'est ce pas?

Purpose implies meaning to someone/something.
Purposeful to who/what ?

Erm, life is purposeful to itself...?

Erm, life is purposeful to itself...?

lol right.. so what does that mean. Life only having purpose to itself means it hasn't got any significance.
I agree.

The significance of purpose to, say, a worm wriggling around in the soil, is that it "needs" to be purposeful about finding food, reproducing, etc (same for any bacteria in the same soil). Same principle for all life. The "meaning" of purpose isn't dependent on the purpose itself.

Purpose doesn't have a "value" as such, except we humans consider the value of things.
You can distinguish a wriggly worm or some insect from a lump of rock. How can you do this; what can you see that tells you "it's a live worm"? My guess is that worms behave with purpose, and rocks don't. Purposeful behaviour signifies something to us (and other lifeforms that need to eat things and escape from danger).

A flag is significant, a book or a speech is significant.
Significance is also a philosophical issue.

Right now I have to ask: why has this turned into a philosophical discussion? Can some brilliant mod shine something on what genetic material and enzymes has to do with life after death and free will?

Right now I have to ask: why has this turned into a philosophical discussion? Can some brilliant mod shine something on what genetic material and enzymes has to do with life after death and free will?

It's because Frud and you reacted to me saying that I didn't agree with Fruds notion that life has purpose.
The question is: why did Frud put it in there in the first place.. ?

Anyway, I will refrain from posting here from now on.. I don't want to be trolling this thread.

So is there a question? Or are we just parked in the "no ahead" lane here?

Is the question "does Life have purpose", actually asking "is Life purposeful"? Or is it asking "does Life have any purpose"?

Are these the same, or separate questions? (That's another question)

"I don't agree with your notion that life has a purpose however."

But this is a different notion to the one I notioned and that I actually posted. This isn't at all what "purposive behaviour" is meant to connect to. Why is it sufficient that a single objector can divert a thread? That's yet another of those question things.

Life doesn't have much to do with chemistry... but life is what you think it is.

And obviously life has a purpose, otherwise we wouldn't have any purpose to live. We might as well die... but the purpose of life is life... the purpose of life is to exist and experience joy. That's why every particle in the universe moves. Every motion is a motion towards non-motion, equilibrium, balance, happiness.

That goal can never be reached though, because then there would be no purpose anymore. Infinity can't be reached, so in one sense we have already reached it.

So is there a question? Or are we just parked in the "no ahead" lane here?

Is the question "does Life have purpose", actually asking "is Life purposeful"? Or is it asking "does Life have any purpose"?

Are these the same, or separate questions? (That's another question)

"I don't agree with your notion that life has a purpose however."

But this is a different notion to the one I notioned and that I actually posted. This isn't at all what "purposive behaviour" is meant to connect to. Why is it sufficient that a single objector can divert a thread? That's yet another of those question things.

I really don't see it that way. Frud says that the purpose of life is to gather energy..
It seems to me like he is saying that that's the purpose of life :shrug:
Oh well..
Without the structure, the chemistry wouldn't be purposive, in the sense that the purpose of life and its chemistry is (just) a way of harnessing the nature of energy to disperse (scatter), by trying to "un-disperse" it, or gather energy.

Life doesn't have much to do with chemistry... but life is what you think it is.

And obviously life has a purpose, otherwise we wouldn't have any purpose to live. We might as well die... but the purpose of life is life... the purpose of life is to exist and experience joy. That's why every particle in the universe moves. Every motion is a motion towards non-motion, equilibrium, balance, happiness.

That goal can never be reached though, because then there would be no purpose anymore. Infinity can't be reached, so in one sense we have already reached it.

Apparently Frud didn't mean it like that..

Frud says that the purpose of life is to gather energy..Thus your subsequent statement: "I don't agree life has a purpose", is disagreeing with it, or what?Life doesn't have much to do with chemistryI'm sorry, but it has quite a lot "to do with" chemistry - it's called biochemistry.but the purpose of life is life.Yes, very succinct, but somewhat lacking in detail. It's a bit circular, but surely, if Life is purposive (purposeful), then the purpose of being purposeful, is "to be purposeful".
It's a lot like saying that that purpose of heat is to heat things...:shrug:

Here's the thing: everything that we see and identify as having "behaviour", behaves or acts (or reacts) - in short is what it is because "it's built that way".

Life is imaginary the way a car is imaginary. You can look really carefully at a car, check all the serviceable bits, connect a computer to them even; but if you take one apart and analyse all the bits and so on, you won't find "car" in any of them, because "car" emerges only when all those parts are put together a certain "correct" way.
There's only a "viable" car-ness when it's assembled properly (timing and certain distributive functionality is important, to the engine or energy source of the machine).

Life is machine-like, but because of a lot of well-developed feedback cycles, it achieves an equilibrium, a stable configuration. These cycles must have been a part of the earliest palaeo-organisms, there must have been a way to sustain something, and assemble some "contraption" to do it with.

Thus your subsequent statement: "I don't agree life has a purpose", is disagreeing with it, or what?

Yes, I disagree that it is life's purpose to gather energy. It simply needs to survive and procreate. These are the major driving forces behind evolution.
There is no such thing as the plan of evolution, evolution has no direction or purpose.. it just happens.

Since this thread is not related to Chemistry of life but now to the "purpose of life" (GATHER ENERGY, according to some) I note, sarcastically, the "purpose" of carbon and iron atoms is to "gather oxygen." * - at least that is chemisty, but that "purpose" is equally silly.
------------------
*Perhaps that is not their "true purpose" - only the means they use to achieve their "true purpose," which as all should know is to "release energy," (so life can fulfill its "purpose"?). Woops, that too may be wrong. In fact, they do not even have the same "purpose"!!!

Carbon's purpose is to escape the "Surley bounds of the Earth" and become an invisible part of the atmosphere, but Iron's purpose is to become a red abrasive and or soft powder, which can adorn the cheeks of women. Woops, that too may be wrong: Carbon's purpose is to help melt the polar ice and iron's is to help make building and bridges be built but then collapse. - OMG - They are evil in their purpose -trying to kill people - Is that their true purpose? We badly need to get this thread into the philosophy section to help resolve the question: "What is "purpose"?, especially as applied to iron and carbon! :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but it has quite a lot "to do with" chemistry - it's called biochemistry.

it's called magic. magic is a magic word that can explain everything that people have ever wondered about... like... why does the sun move? magic makes it move. it's so simple.

Life is machine-like,

machines are life-like because machines are made of... living things.

a machine is a thing that uses the energy of living things without their knowledge. they are similar to animals... we can often use them without their knowledge. the difference is that the animals that machines are made of are even less aware, so they are more reliable. they don't do errors.

We badly need to get this thread into the philosophy section to help resolve the question: "What is "purpose"?, especially as applied to iron and carbon! :rolleyes:

Non-existent outside the subjective..

I disagree that it is life's purpose to gather energy. It simply needs to survive and procreateSo there is no purpose in "gathering" energy, life just "survives"? How does it survive (persist)? Does it have anything to do with energy, or control, or it just "happens"?

...evolution has no direction or purpose.. it just happens.
So life just "happened" to get together one day and decided to "keep happening" , for some completely directionless reason?
"What is "purpose"?, especially as applied to iron and carbon!Right, how about Hydrogen and Oxygen, and Calcium and Nitrogen and Sodium, and Molybdenum and Cobalt, how about those ones? Or Manganese, or Chromium, Phosphorous, Sulfur? How many have I missed?

So there is no purpose in "gathering" energy, life just "survives"? How does it survive (persist)? Does it have anything to do with energy, or control, or it just "happens"?

So life just "happened" to get together one day and decided to "keep happening" , for some completely directionless reason?
Right, how about Hydrogen and Oxygen, and Calcium and Nitrogen and Sodium, and Molybdenum and Cobalt, how about those ones? Or Manganese, or Chromium, Phosphorous, Sulfur? How many have I missed?

It just happens..

Ah. Well, I guess I don't need my Bio text any more, and I can cancel my subscription to Nature.
You better call your local University and tell them, so they don't waste any more time on it.

Marnix said it many pages ago: it is all about emergent properties. Perhaps purpose is an emergent property.

Purpose: purposive or directed action or behaviour, which renders an advantage. A fire appears to want to burn everything (that it can burn), but what advantage does that "behaviour" give a fire? Life is purposive in the sense I state above: it is directed toward advantage and adaptation (by itself and in respect the environment). Different kinds of life compete and interact constantly (plants-herbivores-carnivores-scavengers). We only understand all the interactions between all the different kinds of life a little.

There's evidence that the prokaryotes and archaea have occupied the arena for much longer than the "new guys", i.e. us. Have you heard about the new evidence uncovered regarding what we know about the Permian mass extinction, that the eukaryotes nearly lost out?

There's evidence that the prokaryotes and archaea have occupied the arena for much longer than the "new guys", i.e. us.?Surely that is the received wisdom, etched in granite. Much evidence. Oodles of evidence.
Have you heard about the new evidence uncovered regarding what we know about the Permian mass extinction, that the eukaryotes nearly lost out?Certainly. Peter Ward claims that oxygen levels dropped and hydrogen sulphide was released in quantity as a result of the activities of the "old guys".

There's evidence that the prokaryotes and archaea have occupied the arena for much longer than the "new guys", i.e. us.?

Surely that is the received wisdom, etched in granite. Much evidence. Oodles of evidence.
Yay! But it "just happened", so, there can't be any significance; they're "better" at "just happening" than the eukaryotes. But there can't be any particular reason - perhaps their apparent "mutability advantage" is a magical illusion. I mean, there can't possibly be any scientific explanation or biochemical cause.

Have you heard about the new evidence uncovered regarding what we know about the Permian mass extinction, that the eukaryotes nearly lost out?

Certainly. Peter Ward claims that oxygen levels dropped and hydrogen sulphide was released in quantity as a result of the activities of the "old guys".The oxygen levels dropped, how come they were raised in the first place? Oh right, that "just happened" when photosynthetic organisms "just evolved", and started converting sunlight into sugars.
It "just changed" the entire atmosphere, and made it oxidising (rather than reducing presumably), but that's obviously "just coincidental".

Life is purposive in the sense I state above: it is directed toward advantage and adaptation (by itself and in respect the environment).

It certainly is not..

Purpose: purposive or directed action or behaviour, which renders an advantage. ...We only understand all the interactions between all the different kinds of life a little. ...The part I made bold is YOUR MAIN NONSENSE.

Clearly you do not understand much about the CHANCE NATURE of all evolutionary steps or that there is no way to know what characterisics will be advantages in the future.

Personally, I strongly suspect that the exceptionally big brained creature that evoluved by many chance mutations that did give it dominance over most other forms of life will prove to be a dead end, not only for it own kind, but for most other life forms on Earth also.

I.e. "Mother Nature" and CHANCE probably made a big mistake concentrating so much capability in one creature. - Likely to last less than 1% as long as some of her other smaller brained creatures like fish, cockroaches, etc. - but hell, not even Mother Nature is perfect. Even she can not foretell the future.

Purpose: purposive or directed action or behaviour, which renders an advantage.
The part I made bold is YOUR MAIN NONSENSE.OK, this is getting interesting.
So, just checking that I understand what you THINK YOU ARE SAYING HERE.
The MAIN NONSENSE, is that there is no such thing as purpose? There is no behaviour that we can see anywhere, that is "directed", or which gives "advantage" - NONE of these things exist?

Can you cast any light on your post? I seriously doubt it - you appear to be suffering from some kind of misconception about what those words "purpose" and "advantage" mean.
You probably don't understand what evolution is, either, how could you, if you don't (and you really don't appear to) understand any of the other words, or what they mean?

So do you understand the word "evolution"? Do you understand "biological evolution", or should I give up now?

Life is purposive in the sense I state above: it is directed toward advantage and adaptation (by itself and in respect the environment).
”
It certainly is not..Life is certainly not purposive? Life is not directed toward advantage? Life is not adaptive?

It certainly is all of these things - or at least a biologist/geneticist will tell you that evolution is "purposive", because it results in "advantage". You have read about the theory? You appear to have made a statement that doesn't look like you've based it on more than a knee-jerk.
Can you substantiate "it certainly is not"? I certainly think you will have some difficulty in showing that life is not adaptive, nor directed, nor does it "behave", and especially it doesn't behave "with purpose".
The problem with trying to show this is that it's patently wrong, for a kick-off. So are you.

Great.. lol
Are you religious per chance ?

...So do you understand the word "evolution"? Do you understand "biological evolution"...I do not distinguish between evolution and Biological evolution, but perhaps I should as one could consider a collection of molecules in a galactic gas cloud as interacting and by the fact that gravity is inverse square law and by the fact that different elements do have different condensation (self adherence) temperatures, solar systems do "evolve." I.e. this environment tends to select some gas planets, some rocky planets some much smaller aggregates which then dynamically inter act (many in the early stages of this evolution colliding with a planet) so that the "evolutionary selection" make most of the "surviving fittest" ones not be planet "orbit crosser."

But to come to what most understand by "evolution":

Living organisms eventually die, but before doing some REPRODUCE. Most of the time, basically their own kind, but occasionally a "copy error" occurs which makes an organism very like, but not "exactly like," its parent(s) {the "s" needed for sexual reproducers, but they by numbers are rare.} This slightly different individual organism may be viable and slightly advantaged, in the current environment, but that too is very rare. If that rare case does happen by chance, then on average it may have its "defect" (from POV of its parent) slightly more likely to found in later generations.

This is only selection, not adaptation. - Its normal (non-defective) "perfect copy brothers", for example, the billions of bacteria which do not carry its "defect" do not (they can not) adapt to a change in their blood steam environment that an injection of penicillin makes, so they die. The "defective" individual did not adapt either - it just happened by chance defect to not make the sites on its skin for the penicillin molecule to attach to, so it lived and divided ever few hours and soon was the dominate design for that bacteria, perhaps growing so numerous that it killed the man (and eventually all of its children during the cremation of the man's body).

THERE IS NO ADAPTATION.
THERE IS NO PURPOSE HERE.
THERE IS NOTHING "DIRECTED" HERE.

TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS, is what I called NONSENSE.

For "purposeful adaptation" to be even possible, the future must be known.

To illustrate what should be the obvious truth of this:
Note that occasionally humans are born with very thick hair covering their entire bodies, except for the face.* (I am not exactly sure why, but think we all carry the genetic information to make this full body hair, but for most humans this full body "hair production" is suppressed by some other section of the DNA. I.e. the "ape man" only occurs when that "suppressing section" is damaged.)

Would you say that most current humans have "purposeful adapted"? Or were "selected" (for the current climate and sexual preference of mates).

If the next ice age is extreme and long lasting and the "ape man" with full body hair becomes dominate, is that "adaptation" Or was the currently rare genetic set "selected for"?

Again as the future is unknown - there can be neither "purpose" nor "adaptation." - Only "selection" from the variations that already do exist or happen to be created by chance "copying errors".
--------------------------------
*"...this only occurs for 1 out of 10 billion people,[1] 19 people alive today have hypertrichosis ..." -wiki
I am sure that the rate is at least 1 in a billion as few mothers would nurse a baby covered with fur / hair. Most, at least in primative societies, would immediatel kill and bury the baby for fear of being accused of having had sex with an ape etc. All societies have a "wearwolf" ledgend - it comes from this infrequent variation of human genes, I think.

For "purposeful adaptation" to be even possible, the future must be known.
Explain how scales, feathers, and hair "came about"...?
What's your take on the adaptation of genes to homologous forms? What do you call it, if it isn't adapting (an existing tool to a "new" use)?
I'm sorry, but evolution without adaptation is not Evolution. IOW, evolution IS adaptation. Let's see you disagree with that.
You're confusing "direction and purpose", with "predicting the future".

Of course life is directed (by itself and its programming). Of course there is purpose (life is purposive - it behaves purposefully). Life can't predict how its environment will change, only that it will, certainly change.

...What do you call it, if it isn't adapting (an existing tool to a "new" use)?
I'm sorry, but evolution without adaptation is not Evolution. ...I THINK I SEE THE ORIGIN OF YOUR ERROR:

Yes adaption is very common - I do it with a sweater when it is cold etc.
This adaption has nothing to do with evolution and you are confused to think it does. I could put a dozens sweaters on each hour and my offsprings would not be born with a sweater on.

Evolution is not concerned with the adaptations that individual do make dozens of times each day. It concern the the CHANCE changes that happen in the DNA etc which get passed down to the next generation. There is no "direction" of that -it might be caused by a cosmic ray, some chemical molecule etc. not by any adaptive change in the individual's behavior.

"Adaptation has nothing to do with Evolution"? I'd say that's your error, and I'm not at all sure about its origin.

So are you going to try to explain the scales-feathers-hair homology, without invoking the idea of something being adapted?

Can you offer an explanation of how an individual organism manages to survive, that doesn't invoke the concepts of "directed action", "purpose", and "advantage"?
I'd be impressed if you could do it by leaving out just one of those three ideas.

Yes adaption is very common - I do it with a sweater when it is cold etc.
This adaption has nothing to do with evolution and you are confused to think it does. This isn't going to fly, sorry. You're the one confusing an idea of adaptation, with Evolution. Lifeforms don't "put a sweater on". Unless that means they express genes.

Your adaptation of another organisms genetic output -wool, is evolutionary and it does support the notion that evolution is adaptation.
You're an evolved organism, and putting on a sweater is adaptive behaviour--it's the adaptation of something from another lifeform--you got it off some sheep right?
Adaptation - due to your superior reasoning and logical abilities, allowed you to "foresee" that having wool would warm you, like it warms a cold sheep, so you adapted it by taking it from the sheep.

:wallbang::wave:

One final try for Vkothii:

By definition, "evolution" is the changes in genetic information that passes down to later generations.

NO BEHAVIOR, reguardless of how adaptive for the individual, modifies the genetic infomation contained in it genes.

Thus, adaptive behavoir does not passes down as "evolution." - It can be passed down via education, but that is not evolution. Also very few ideas persist for evolutionary times scales (millions of years).

Natural selection, "the agent of evolution," can only chose to favor the genetic changes that have already happend by CHANCE.

ADAPTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION because it makes no change in the genetic information of the individual making the adaptation. That genetic material is changed by copying errors and environment damage, such as cosmic ray, certain chemicals, perhaps viral atack on the genetic material record, but never by an adaptive behavior the individual may learn and adopt or discover by accident. Behavior, adaptive or otherwise, can only change the individual. - For example build his mussles but not his stored genetic information (his genes).
----------------------
----------------------
Brief reply to your questions:

How any complex functional structure actually evolved always is to some extent speculation, but often some of the intermediate stages are observed in fossils. I will not tell how feathers, scales, etc. evolved, but how they did for most of these complex features is well founded, highly plausible, by this sort of data.

In the case of the eye, many of the earlier stages are still found in living creatures: The evolution of the eye probably starts with a simple radiation sensitive pit, such as still functional for pit vibers, then slowly in millions of years transforms by many small accidential changes in the genetic information evolves into a much deeper "pit", nearly circular in shape, which forms an image as in the Pin-hole camera.This functional level is still found in the Chambered Nautlus, (Still no lens and open for sea water to fill.) Then a covering transparent skin/film closed that chamber, as still seen in related sea creatures. That film thickend to become a lense. etc.

i.e. All stages of probable evolution path to human like eyes are still present in living creatures. (But human do not have the most advanced eyes evolution has produced.) Some fish eyes still have some features humans have lost. - For example, the common gold fish has four different color sensitive retinal cells / detectors, humans probably dropped one as they evolved and now most have only three. Some humans have only two. Perhaps humans are evolving to be a di-chromic creature?

The eye has evolved thru different stages more than a dozen times independently. For example, the octopuss has a better retina design than humans in that the retina is the first thing the light falls on, not behind layers of blood vessels and nerves* as in human eye structure. One tiny creature has a single photo-sensitive cell in each eye but it can be moved around within the eye (which can not turn in a socket) to scan the image, pixel-by pixel. - For it, this is a good design as its tiny "brain" has too few cells to do much "parallel processing."
----------------
*There are distinct layers of nerves in the human retina - One of their main jobs is "data compression," by nearly a 100 to 1 factor, as that is about the ratio of retina photo-cells to optic nerve "output" fibers, which carry the compressed data to the brain.

By definition, "evolution" is the changes in genetic information that passes down to later generations.That's it? Evolution is genetic information? Why or how is it "passed down"?
adaptive behavoir does not passes down as "evolution."Yes it does, behaviour is innate - all organisms "arrive" with a behaviour imprint. Genes which are "fitter" get passed down by those organisms (ancestors) who "made the most" of what they had - they're the ones who adapted best, and gained the most advantage. Reproduction is an advantage, biologically speaking.
ADAPTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION because it makes no change in the genetic information of the individual making the adaptation.It doesn't change the individual organism's genes, right, I know that, and so do all the other biologists who understand how it works.
However, adaptation does have something to do with Evolution, so you are incorrect in saying that it doesn't.

Do you know what adaptation has to do with the process? (you could ask someone who knows about it, or do you want me to tell you?)

I have given up on trying to persuade you with rational argument and facts - you are too well vacinated aginst them, but always try to answer direct questions.That's it? Evolution is genetic information? Why or how is it "passed down"?You are not a good reader also. I said it was the CHANGE in the genetic information, not the information itsself, that when passed down to later generations, was "evolution." As far has how it is passed down, if you really do not know, perhaps you are too young for me to tell - Ask someone in person to tell you about the "birds and the bees."
... all organisms "arrive" with a behaviour imprintTrue. Quite complex behaviors even. (For example, a "Baltimore Oriel" builds a unique hanging nest. If the eggs of some B.O.s are taken to region where they do not exist and the young B.O.s grow up in large aviary with many other bird types that all build conventional nest in forks of tree limbs etc, the B.O.s will build their hanging nest, perfectly still, even thought they never saw one.)

Genes which are "fitter" get passed down by those organisms (ancestors) who "made the most" of what they had - they're the ones who adapted best, and gained the most advantage. Reproduction is an advantage, biologically speaking. Again true, but the reproduction of the existing genetic material is not "evolution."
The first pre-human ancesstor of man to stand up on the hind legs may have been adapting to some genetic defect, which made the "knuckle walking" all his brothers and sisters did more difficult for him. In his more vertical position - he may have seen the pride of lioness advancing thru the grass sooner and be the first one to make it up into the distant tree. (Sadly only one of his normal brothers did too.) This is NATURAL SELECTION OF A GENETIC CHANGE THAT OCCURED BY CHANCE. Nothing to do with "adaptation" or "direction."
It doesn't change the individual organism's genes, right, I know that, and so do all the other biologists who understand how it works. again correct - glad you understand that.
However, adaptation does have something to do with Evolution, ... This is about the 7th time you have asserted this with no agrument, no evidence. etc. Few will believe you even if asserted 70 times without agruement.
Do you know what adaptation has to do with the process? (...or do you want me to tell you?)Yes, I would. Please tell.
I illustrated a case of "Natural Selection" above, but forgot to tell all about the "normal" brother who also survived. That normal (not any genetic defect - a regular "nuckle walker" type) brother was just lucky and happened to be hear the tree, but he noted that his genetic defect brother has been the first to see the approaching lions, so he adaptively changed his behavior, and periodicly stood up to look around when in tall grass. - I.e. because of his adaptation, he passed his "normal" non-evolved genes down too. If only the non-defective, same old genes pass down - no change in the gene pool - then there is no evolution taking place. Some creatures are already very well adapted to their environments and all of the genetic defects that have occurred have been less adapted. That is why some turtles, alegators, fish, etc. have not changed for millions of years.

Again,yes, I would like you to tell me how the adaptaion of a set of individuals with no accidental chance changes in the gene pool, evolves into new creatures because of some adaptation even the whole group adopts it. For example, if someone in the group learns a better type of stone to chip into arrow heads, and this adaptation becomes universal knowledge in the group. - how is that adaptation part of evolution?

I answered your questions - I only ask this one. Will you try to answer it?

OK, first I assume there's a question (and an answer):
the question: what does adaptation have to do with Evolution?

the answer: "Nothing, evolution is the chance variation of genetic material" ."Bzzzt!" - no, there's more to it than "random" shifts in genes.
The answer is, of course, that varied genes get adapted by the organisms that have them, to purposes other than their "original" use. This explains genetic homology (q.v.).

In other words, genes are like a bag of tools. Tools have a specific use, but you can use a particular tool in a different way (you can use a chisel as a screwdriver, and a screwdriver as a chisel, for example, screwdrivers and chisels are homologous).
Using a tool differently, is called adaptation.
This is how Evolution works: by adapting tools to different uses - the toolkit gets altered by changes that occur because of external influences (ionising radiation, copying errors, etc), and because those organisms that adapt and find advantage get selected for reproduction, thus the "new" tools, or ways to use them (genes) persist.
I would like you to tell me how the adaptaion of a set of individuals with no accidental chance changes in the gene pool, evolves into new creatures because of some adaptationWith no genetic changes, there is no adaptation, so no evolution.

Can you show me where I've made a mistake with this reasoning?

...The answer is, of course, that varied genes get adapted by the organisms that have them, to purposes other than their "original" use. ...Please tell what you mean by a "gene getting adapted" - does this refer to some new chemical configuration of the gene? If not, what has that to do with the changes in the gene pool of the next generation, which is what is evolution?

I will try to answer your question when you answer mine, already asked. Perhaps you were not clear what my question was? Here it is again:

In the example I gave, of some member of the group accidently adapting a differ type of stone or method of chiping it to making making better arrow heads, and even assuming that that behavioral adaption became universal in the group, how does that use of new material or method (an adaptation) cause any change in the gene pool of the next generation?

I think that natural selection of totally undirected, accidental changes (copy error or damage to the parent's stored transmitable genetic material) is how the next generation's gene pool change. Natural selection, surviable of the fitest etc. can only select on what changes chance has produced. nothing is directed and no gene is chanced by behavior adaption - using hand a different way etc.

To give another example: When I was young all high jumpers went over the bar with torso vertical. Then some guy by name of Frostberg went over with a curved body. - His style was called the "frostberg flip." This was an adaptive invention (new way to use your body) by one individual then became universal, but made no changes in the gene pool. Thus had nothing to do with evolution.

Furthermore, no behaviour adaption, including ones which increase reproductive chances of individuals who discover better materials or processes (such as how to make better arrow heads), makes zero evolutionary steps, because that adaptation (behavior change) does not change the gene pool passed down to next generation.

Please tell what you mean by a "gene getting adapted"Genes are "tools". You know how to adapt a tool, don't you?
In the example I gave, of some member of the group accidently adapting a differ type of stone or method of chiping it to making making better arrow heads, and even assuming that that behavioral adaption became universal in the group, how does that use of new material or method (an adaptation) cause any change in the gene pool of the next generation?Because the adaptation changes the survivability (renders an advantage). If an adaptation is advantageous, then it survives. If it survives, it gets passed on. Human utilisation of materials (something other animals aren't as "good at"), is evolutionary. Or can you explain how it has nothing to do with the evolution of the mammalian brain? What's an "accidental" adaptation? Adaptation is purposeful.
no behaviour adaption, including ones which increase reproductive chances of individuals who discover better materials or processes (such as how to make better arrow heads), makes zero evolutionary steps, because that adaptation (behavior change) does not change the gene pool passed down to next generation.If reproductive success changes, that's advantage.
Reproduction is advantageous (to genes). The gene pool changes, contrary to what you posted, because reproductive advantage changes. Evolutionary steps are not therefore, "zero".

P.S. If you're going to stick with: "Evolution is chance variation in genetic material", then stick with it.

But it's only PART of THE STORY. If you're happy with part of the story, ok. But please stop insisting that it's all there is to it. Clearly there's a lot more to it.

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences special publication from 2005, Sytstematics and the Origin of the Species: an introduction, I find 148 instances of the word adapt, or variants thereof (adaptation, adaptive, etc).

In On the Origin of Species I find 155 instances.

Without checking out each and every use of the word(s) I do find it suggestive that publications at opposite ends of the timeline of evolutionary theory should find it so convenient, even necessary, to talk of adaptation in a work on evolution.

In a more direct fashion, BillyT, you seem to be going against the tide of usage common to biologists, who would speak - as I understand it - of adaptation to an enviroment via the chance mutation of genetic material.

Forgive me for being so brusque, but I think you have been sidetracked down this mistaken path by vkothii's rather belligerent style, which seems to conceal some hidden agenda.

vkothii, it is best not to patronise people unless you are the smartest person on the planet, and then it is probably unecessary.

vkothii, it is best not to patronise people unless you are the smartest person on the planet, and then it is probably unecessary.Why are you being patronising about this issue? If someone can't see the bleedingly obvious - and I honestly cannot see how use of a tool isn't an obvious metaphor, or even an accurate description of what adaptation is, I tend to get a little antsy, I guess.

P.S. I'm only one of the smartest people on the planet. Smart enough to have realised that I'm not the smartest person on the planet.
The only agenda I have (which may not be congruent with yours or anyone else's I've discussed this or that with), is presenting what I "know" about stuff. This is nowhere near as easy a thing to do as I first thought.

Why do you think Billy T is distracted? Why do you think it's got something to do with me and some agenda?
Excuse me while I have a fit of laughing for a sec.

Why are you being patronising about this issue? If someone can't see the bleedingly obvious - and I honestly cannot see how use of a tool isn't an obvious metaphor, or even an accurate description of what adaptation is, I tend to get a little antsy, I guess.

P.S. I'm only one of the smartest people on the planet. Smart enough to have realised that I'm not the smartest person on the planet.
The only agenda I have (which may not be congruent with yours or anyone else's I've discussed this or that with), is presenting what I "know" about stuff. This is nowhere near as easy a thing to do as I first thought.

Why do you think Billy T is distracted? Why do you think it's got something to do with me and some agenda?
Excuse me while I have a fit of laughing for a sec.


From what I have seen of your efforts, I'd say you were very good at presenting what you DON'T know. Why not regale us with tales from genesis. You should be able to manage that much.

Why not regale us with tales from genesis. You should be able to manage that much.
Why can't, or don't you contribute something more meaningful than a whine? Why not use that brain like a tool and adapt it to something helpful. Why do you think telling everyone "Yes I understand Evolution", means we should believe it? I don't.
If you understood, you'd be able to contribute something other than petulance and pathetic attempts at nay-saying.

Sucked in again huh?

Summarising the, er, stuff discussed so far, or paraphrasing the beliefs some seem to have:

"Evolution is random mutation of genetic material. Genetic material (along with the changes due to evolution) gets passed down - this is not evolution it's inheritance.
The information is passed down to other information (evolution is the change in this information). What does it get passed down to? Well, to things that hang on to it for a while, before passing it down again, via reproduction. Life is just a caretaker of genetic information.

Life has no purpose - but organisms appear to behave with purpose. There is no explanation for this. There is no purpose in the changes to genetic material (evolution). It's all random.
Any apparent direction, or goal, has no explanation either, because evolution is random, and life's only purpose is to store genes until it can hand them on. There's no purpose to this though - it's all random."

Yeah...

For "purposeful adaptation" to be even possible, the future must be known.
Or well guessed.



The error you both make is in the error of believing the other to be in error. I suggest we all indulge ourselves in some homology.

If someone tells me (in a forceful manner) that I've got it wrong, I tend to respond forcefully.
And I'm not really happy about a mod telling me that it's my fault that someone has the "wrong idea" because I've "lead them down a path", and I'm the belligerent one.

Sorry, but I'm the kind of guy who responds. If someone gets belligerent and forceful about their opinion of things I've said (posted here), I respond with stuff that I think reflects the same level of belligerence. You're going to have to ban me if you want this to stop.

And furthermore....

Why can't, or don't you contribute something more meaningful than a whine? Why not use that brain like a tool and adapt it to something helpful. Why do you think telling everyone "Yes I understand Evolution", means we should believe it? I don't.
If you understood, you'd be able to contribute something other than petulance and pathetic attempts at nay-saying.

Sucked in again huh?

What would I gain other than more silly questions you would expect me to answer. Sorry that you fail to differentiate between sagacity and whining.

Ah. A sagacious whiney person. Well, I guess that makes all the difference.

Ah. A sagacious whiney person. Well, I guess that makes all the difference.

" Genes get adapted by the organisms......."

" A gene is a tool"

You are totally out of your depth but you will not be told. You are living proof that evolution is blind, which is something you cannot understand. As you are not prepared to make an effort to inform yourself. it's reasonable to assume you are the product of some ID outfit.

The only people you'll convince with your misguided utterances and erroneous assumptions are uninformed people such as yourself. I shall now place you on ignore.

A gene is a tool. A genome is a toolkit. Myles is a living example of how a human mind can become totally lost in their own, self-centred, idealistic thoughts.
Someone should tell him to get lost, but he already is.

Vkothii you are quite the rudest person I have encountered on these forums for some time.
You also appear to lack an appreciation of the difference between teaching and preaching. Unlike Myles I shall probably not place you on ignore. I find your brand of intransigent obnoxiousness can be quite educational in its own way.

But what possible purpose could you have imagined, in posting the above? Rude is as rude does. You aren't or you don't want to see this as an argument between two obviously opposing points?

He thinks he's right, and I'm wrong. He gets quite personal and rude about it.
I think I'm right, and he's wrong, I get personal and rude about it with him, I reflect it right back.

Preaching is something we all do. Or is your post from a different kind of pulpit?

P.S. You really haven't seen rude yet - but I have no intention of taking this beyond pot-shots at other intransigent points of view.
And if that means being "rude" (like so many others) so be it. Aren't you just being precious? Should I care?

But what possible purpose could you have imagined, in posting the above? I did not imagine a purpose. I had a purpose, or rather purposes. One of these - the primary one - was achieved: it made me feel better. The second one - a minor purpose - I had little hope of achieving: to shock you into contemplating your behaviour and re-evaluating how it is perceived by others.
You aren't or you don't want to see this as an argument between two obviously opposing points?There is a misunderstanding on BillyT's side of what adaption means in evolution. I have addressed this in my earlier post, clearly coming down on your side in the matter of facts.
What I have found unpleasant in your posts - and what I commented on - was a snide manner and a skirting of the central issues.Preaching is something we all do. Or is your post from a different kind of pulpit?I wasn't preaching. I was communicating an opinion.
.P.S. You really haven't seen rude yet - but I have no intention of taking this beyond pot-shots at other intransigent points of view.
And if that means being "rude" (like so many others) so be it. Aren't you just being precious? Should I care?Only if you want your views to be taken seriously.

...There is a misunderstanding on BillyT's side of what adaption means in evolution....I would appreciate it if you specifically told me what you think I misunderstand about the role of adaption in evolution. I have stated there is none and told my reasons for that.

It is true that the chance variations, already existing within the gene pool, will cause some individuals to be better adapted to some change in the environment; But they do not ADAPT to the change. They are already with the more survivable genes and are SELECTED by the changed environment.

For example, those individuals with a set of gene that produce more than the average amount of body hair may be favored as the CLIMATE’s average winter temperature changes to ice age conditions. The do not “adapt” to the colder weather. They are “selected” by it. Others, LACKING THE FAVORED GENES, (I.e. with little body hair), may adapt by putting on a sweater etc. The effect of these “little-fur” types adapting with a sweater, is only to REDUCE the competitive advantage of the “hairy body” types. Thus, quite the contrary to what has been suggested by Vkothii in ignorance, adaptation only reduces the effectiveness of the true agent of evolution, which is SELECTION OF EXISTING GENENETIC VARIATION (I.e. parts of the gene pool which do not need to adapt). I.e. SELECTION of the CHANCE MUTATATIONS that are already better suited to reproduce in the changed environment without the need to adapt.

I think many, perhaps even your, are confused and do think the fact that some already existing genes produce individuals that are better adapted (note the passive tense) to the changed environment, which selects (note the active tense) or favors for reproduction. The selected individual is not “adapting.” Adaptation REQUIRES your action – it is not a passive thing that happens to you. (E.g. putting on a sweater when cold is adaptation. Having genes that made your body hairy is not.)

Do not be embarrassed. – Many do not think clearly about this. Perhaps something in my prior posts was misunderstood by you? For your convenience, below is what I have said about adaption earlier. (If you now agree with me, there is no need to read the following again.)

In post 52 I said:

“…the reproduction of the existing genetic material is not "evolution. The first pre-human ancestor of man to stand up on the hind legs may have been adapting to some genetic defect, which made the "knuckle walking" all his brothers and sisters did more difficult for him. In his more vertical position - he may have seen the pride of lioness advancing thru the grass sooner and be the first one to make it up into the distant tree. (Sadly only one of his normal brothers did too.) This is NATURAL SELECTION OF A GENETIC CHANGE THAT OCCURED BY CHANCE. Nothing to do with "adaptation" or "direction." …
That normal (not any genetic defect - a regular "knuckle walker" type) brother was just lucky and happened to be hear the tree, but he noted that his genetic defect brother has been the first to see the approaching lions, so he adaptively changed his behavior, and periodically stood up to look around when in tall grass. - I.e. because of his adaptation, he passed his "normal" non-evolved genes down too. If only the non-defective, same old genes pass down - no change in the gene pool - then there is no evolution taking place. Some creatures are already very well adapted to their environments and all of the genetic defects that have occurred have been less adapted. That is why some turtles, alligators, fish, etc. have not changed for millions of years. ..."

In post 50 I said:

"... ADAPTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION because it makes no change in the genetic information of the individual making the adaptation. That genetic material is changed by copying errors and environment damage, such as cosmic ray, certain chemicals, perhaps viral attack on the genetic material record, but never by an adaptive behavior the individual may learn and adopt or discover by accident. Behavior, adaptive or otherwise, can only change the individual. - For example build his mussels but not his stored genetic information (his genes). ..."

In post 45 I said:

'... Its normal (non-defective) "perfect copy brothers", for example, the billions of bacteria which do not carry its "defect" do not (they can not) adapt to a change in their blood steam environment that an injection of penicillin makes, so they die. The "defective" individual did not adapt either - it just happened by chance defect to not make the sites on its skin for the penicillin molecule to attach to, so it lived and divided ever few hours and soon was the dominate design for that bacteria, perhaps growing so numerous that it killed the man (and eventually all of its children during the cremation of the man's body).

THERE IS NO ADAPTATION.
THERE IS NO PURPOSE HERE.
THERE IS NOTHING "DIRECTED" HERE.

TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS, is what I called NONSENSE. ..."

THERE IS NO ADAPTATION.
THERE IS NO PURPOSE HERE.
THERE IS NOTHING "DIRECTED" HERE.
Nonetheless, Darwinian evolution implies adaptation. The fact genes are tools implies usage, and so variation in usage (adaptation to more than one use).
I have evidence from here and there of an example of adaptation of genes in prokaryotes, and a link to eukaryotes from the same gene; and lots of examples of homology, which is also the same thing as adaptation.It is true that the chance variations, already existing within the gene pool, will cause some individuals to be better adapted to some change in the environment; But they do not ADAPT to the change.The species as a whole adapts, not individuals.

Individual genotypes or variations are toolkits, which use tools (as organisms) and pass the toolkit on, right? So the genome that survives is the one that represents the best of the individually adapted toolsets.
Any changes in the toolkit during its use are probably detrimental (it's a low probability that a chance mutation will be favourable - advantageous to an individual genotype).

Why such a big deal with purpose or direction? Why are you so adamant there is none of either? That is, do you know much about biochem or genetics? I mean, really...

Spud cautiously nudges Vkothii with eleven foot barge pole to see if he's for real.

Whoops big mistake!
Let sleeping dogs lie they said, no, second big mistake!

Hmm! Spud evolves an idea and prepares to adapt it at will where required..resolves to agree with everything Vko...can I just call you biscotti?( it's my association technique)
says and calm the rabid beast.

Can Spud agree with everything Vkothii says and derail his antagonistic demeanor?
Can I do this and simultaneously undermine him with slurs and derogatory euphemisms he won't have a chance in God's hell of understanding?

You might try another alphabet, old spud.

I would appreciate it if you specifically told me what you think I misunderstand about the role of adaption in evolution. I have stated there is none and told my reasons for that.THERE IS NO ADAPTATION.
Certainly. These observations are taken from The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, by S.J.Gould, largely because I have a copy to hand and it is a work by a recognised authority on evolution.
1. page 117 footnote ....Darwin, in borrowing the term, followed an established definition while radically revising the cause of the phenomenon.
2. page 254 .... And Darwin now makes his fundamental choice by affirming fealty to the English lineage of adaptationist thought. He argues that ancestral structures, forming the greta homologies of Unity of Type, initally arose by natural selection, as adaptations to "organic and inorganic conditions of life" in ancestral environments....... The old dichotomy, in fact, expresses no clash of opposites at all, but only marks the temporally sequential representations of one dominant position in evolution - adaptation by natural selection. {My emphasis.}
3. page 662 ....examples based on genuine species adaptations (for an emergent character that evolved as a consequence of its value in fitness is, ipso facto, an adaptation);....

I could produce a hundred such quotes from this single work, all of which seem to me to place adaptation at the heart of evolution. You deny this and though I probably know you better than Steven Gould I feel I must adopt (not adapt;)) his perspective on the subject.

Or, if that is not convincing consider this quote from On the Origin of Species:
There is no reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under domestication should not have acted under nature. In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurrent Struggle for Existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of Selection. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of increase which is common, to all organic beings. This high rate of increase is proved by calculation,—by the rapid increase of many animals and plants during succession of peculiar seasons, and when naturalised in new countries. More individuals are born than can possibly survive. A grain in the balance may determine which individuals shall live and which shall die,—which variety or species shall increase in number, and which shall decrease, or finally become extinct. As the individuals of the same species come in all respects into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will generally be most severe between them; it will be almost equally severe between the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of the same genus. On the other hand the struggle will often be severe between beings remote in the scale of nature. The slightest advantage in certain individuals, at any age or during any season, over those with which they come into competition, or better adaptation in however slight a degree to the surrounding physical conditions, will, in the long run, turn the balance.

Here Darwin summarise the very heart of his thesis, and adaptation is a key element within it. BillyT, you are arguing for a different meaning of the words, that while valid and plausible does not match the usage of biologists from Darwin to Gould (and likely all those between). Therefore, I believe you are mistaken.

...S.J.Gould, .... And Darwin now makes his fundamental choice by affirming fealty to the English lineage of adaptationist thought. He argues that ancestral structures, forming the greta homologies of Unity of Type, initally arose BY NATURAL SELECTION, as adaptations to "organic and inorganic conditions of life" in ancestral environments....... The old dichotomy, in fact, expresses no clash of opposites at all, but only marks the temporally sequential representations of one dominant position in evolution - adaptation BY NATURAL SELECTION.
3. page 662 ....examples based on genuine species adaptations (for an emergent character that evolved as a consequence of its value in fitness is, ipso facto, an adaptation);....

Or, if that is not convincing consider this quote from On the Origin of Species:...{The text given does not even contain the word apapt or adtation etc. - why site it?}
....BillyT, you are arguing for a different meaning of the words, that while valid and plausible does not match the usage of biologists from Darwin to Gould (and likely all those between). Therefore, I believe you are mistaken.In your siteations I have made the three word that follow adaptation all capitals as that again confirms exactly my OFTEN STATED POINT - Namely that Natural section can only SELECT beween the EXISTING variations. No adtation by an one or any genes. No direction for evolution. It is just a long sting of CHANCE MUTATIONS that produces a new species. Yes that new speies is more fit (or better adapted) to the changed enviroment that the one which died out. BUT ADAPTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION - IN NO WAY DOES IT PALY ANY ROLE. IN NO WAY IS PART OF THE CAUSE - IT IS THE RESULT (of Selection amoung the ALREADY EXISTING EXISTING varieties with in the geen pool.)

I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH GOULD (and DARKIN, etc.) If you do not think so, I again ask you to specifically quote any place where I am wrong or misunderstand. First time I asked this, I even collected in one location my comments on adaption from three different posts for your convenience, but you only site text with which I fully agree and which like me specifically states that evolution is achived by SELECTION, NOT BY ADAPTATION -AGAIN ADAPTATION IS THE RESULT not how evolution works or happens.

Namely that Natural section can only SELECT beween the EXISTING variations.Given.
No adtation by an one or any genes.Genes don't adapt by themselves, they get adapted. A screwdriver doesn't use itself.
No direction for evolution. It is just a long sting of CHANCE MUTATIONSAnd the adaptation of advantage that any chance mutation, happens to bestow.
Yes that new speies is more fit (or better adapted) to the changed enviroment that the one which died out. BUT ADAPTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION - IN NO WAY DOES IT PALY ANY ROLE.But clearly, it does "play a role", it's the player, genes are the "role".

Ask Spud, he's a dap tater.

Wood ashes have nothing to with combustion - Ashes are the result/product of combustion.
Adaptation has nothing to do with evolution. - Adaptation is the result/product of evolution

Selection among existing variations makes evolution. Selection, not adaptation, causes evolution.
Organisms may adapt*, but that adaptation has nothing to do with evolution. (Genes cannot even adapt!)
Random changes make variation in the gene pool, which can be selected to cause evolution.
Thus evolution is not directed. It is selection operating on different chance happenings.
------------
*For example, put on sweater when it is cold.


From Post 37:
Purpose: purposive or directed action or behaviour, which renders an advantage. ... Life is purposive in the sense I state above: it is directed toward advantage and adaptation ...Nonsense. adaptation is a RESULT of selection action on chance variation

{The text given does not even contain the word apapt or adtation etc. - why site it?}I have cited it because it is a summary of Darwin's view of his own theory and that summary does include the word adaptation, which I have highlighted for your benefit.
There is no reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under domestication should not have acted under nature. In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurrent Struggle for Existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of Selection. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of increase which is common, to all organic beings. This high rate of increase is proved by calculation,—by the rapid increase of many animals and plants during succession of peculiar seasons, and when naturalised in new countries. More individuals are born than can possibly survive. A grain in the balance may determine which individuals shall live and which shall die,—which variety or species shall increase in number, and which shall decrease, or finally become extinct. As the individuals of the same species come in all respects into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will generally be most severe between them; it will be almost equally severe between the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of the same genus. On the other hand the struggle will often be severe between beings remote in the scale of nature. The slightest advantage in certain individuals, at any age or during any season, over those with which they come into competition, or better adaptation in however slight a degree to the surrounding physical conditions, will, in the long run, turn the balance.

It is clear in this passage that Darwin views adaptation as part of the process of evolution, not simply its consequence. (Or it certainly seems clear to me.)

adaptation is a RESULT of selection action on chance variationYou've got this backwards.
Selection is a result of (or results in) the best adapted variations. Selection is a pressure on a genome, something that deforms or "hones" it to fit better.

Results are what we look for. Genes get selected (by external conditions, like a boundary for the genome, which represents all the individuals, or the individuals are representatives of the genome). A species is the fittest representative, if you will.

You're only looking at half the process of evolution, "Darwin-style". The other half is adaptation and survival (thus replication). You're not completing the circle.

Darwin clearly sees two agencies at work: variability and adaptation.
Variability is presented, the environment selects the fittest variations. The agency of selection.
Adaptation is use of the toolset (gene complement), which is directed at survival and replication. The agency of adaptation.

You've got this backwards.
Selection is a result of (or results in) the best adapted variations. Selection is a pressure on a genome, something that deforms or "hones" it to fit better....
Oh, thanks so much. Now I understand the process of combustion also.

Previously I thought:

Wood ashe has nothing to do with the process of combustion - Ashes are the end result/product of combustion.
Adaptation has nothing to do with the process of evolution. - Adaptations are the end result/product of evolution.

Now I realize that ashes make "pressure" on the process of oxidation /combustion.* This "deforms or hones" combustion to completion.

:rolleyes:

There is just one thing I do not understand still:

What is the mechanism by which adaptation makes this "pressure" on the genes?* (This is because adaptation is something each indivudual organism does.** Adaptation REQUIRES some action, like putting on a sweater. Adaptation is not a passive process, like rain falling on you, but your opening an unbrella would be an adaptation to the rain falling.)

I.e. how does adaptation change even one gene? Is there some part of genetic chemisty I am ignorant of? I mistakenly thought only things like cosmic rays, modified genes and then the enviroment (not adaptation) favored some of the variations that already existed.

I confess: I do not yet understand the process by which adaptation changes genes like cosmic rays can. Perhaps you will expalin how adaptation directs the chemical change / structure of genes as you stated in post 37 to make some individuals more "fit".

We both agree that the end result of evolution is that the species change to be more fit, but I mistakenly thought this was accomplished by SELECTION of some variations that chance created. We are, however, discussing the PROCESS called "evolution" - I.e.how it works and whether or not it is "directed", "purposeful" etc. (You say "yes". I say "no.") - I still do not see the "direction" adaptation gives to the process of evolution or how evolution is "purposeful"?

PS to Hipparchia:
Yes I was mistaken the word adaptation does appear once near the end of your text in Italics, but it is only in the phrase: "...those with which they come into competition, or better adaptation ..." clearly again emphasizing that it is the selection of those with genes already changed by chance that are more fit in the competive struggle for sending your genes down into the next generation. Not the slightest hint that adaptaion is directing or causing any part of the slow transformation of the spieces into a new one. There is no purpose no direction - Only very many accidental copy errror (or genetic changes by agent like cosmic rays) the vast majority of which are less adapted, but occasionally one is better adapted. Note that the genes did not adapt - they were selected for the chance produced varriations. No direction, not by God, not by Darwin, not by the enviroment - it is all "purposeless chance."
-----------------
*I can not be sure, but suspect that ashes make "pressure" on the combustion process by providing a catalytic surface for the fuel and oxygen to react on. How does adaptation make for more rapid changes in the chemical structure of any gene? :shrug:

**As I use the the word "adaptation" the transformation of liquid H2O into ice is not an adaptation to temperature falling to less than zero C. Likewise the reduction of a hill's altitude is not an adaptation to rainfall errosion, etc. Only actions by living organisms are adaptations. If you are using the word adaptation to include natural passive change by non-living chemical compounds, like DNA or genes or wood burning, and passive natural changes to structures, such as ice forming, hill erroding, etc. then that may be the main source of conflict.

I.e. how does adaptation change even one gene?It doesn't. Adaptations need to be "tested". Selection plus adaptation does the changing. You then answer your own question with:
Only actions by living organisms are adaptations.

When I asked:
"How does adaptation change even one gene? "
You replied:It doesn't. ...

As evolution is by definition the change of the existing gene pool, then how can you say "adaptation" (an active behavioral change by one or more living organisms) has anything to do with the process of evolution?

Are your finally agreeing with me, that chance events, such as cosmic rays, makes many genetic changes? - I.e. contrary to your post 37 claims for "adaptation" and "purpose" playing a central role in evolution, are you now admitting that all genetic changes are a result of chance and that a few (a very small fraction) of these chance changes do produce a "product" (an end result, like wood ashes are the end result of the combustion process acting on wood) -I.e. The "end product" is the modified gene pool that is better suited (more fit, more adapted) to the changed enviroment? Are your now agreeing that adaptation has nothing to due with the process of evolution, except to be the end product, like wood ashes are the end product of another process? (Or do you continue to insist that adaptation and purpose play a central role in the process of evolution?)

Did you read what came after the bit you cut and pasted? What does it say?

Genetic changes don't make evolution. Adaptations don't make any either.

They both have to be active, you need both in the on state. Selection and advantage (due to adaptation). That's two things, for the record.

you seem to be insisting that, instead of two things, there's only one thing.

But there are two things??

You say that genetic change leads to advantage, but adaptation of the gene (advantageously) is what leads to the advantage.
Sorry Bill ,old son, but you have a misconception. Have another look at the theory.

The Galapagos finches are a well-known example of the adaptation of structural genes (the same set of body plans), or genetic homology., to a range or genomic spectrum - speciation. The finches are all descended from a common ancestor, that diversified to occupy the different island ecologies. Common descent is another key part of Darwinism, as you probably know.

They didn't get to differentiate by chance; it happened because a set of genes got modified by adaptation and selection - or advantage and variation. They're just ways of saying the same thing, or rather the same two things.

...Selection and advantage (due to adaptation). That's two things, ...you seem to be insisting that, instead of two things, there's only one thing. But there are two things?? Yes I agree there are two things in the process of evolution:
(1) a change change in some individual's genes which in some (usually a very small way) gives:
(2) that individual, on average, greater advantage than others in leaving his modified genes in the next generation.

For example, his mussle may be more prowerful as his slightly different bio-chemisty can convert stored energy more quickly, etc. That would be an "advantage" but not an "adaptation."

"Adaptation" is an active behavior change by some living organism. It is Neither the passive result of some chance change happening to you, Nor the effect of physic or chemisty that makes a transformation in your genes (like cosmic rays change genes, often only one SNP at a time) even if that genetic change makes you behave differently or have different characteristics.

If "adaptation" were a passive change, in non-living organism like the DNA molecule (or the smaller parts of it called genes), then water also "adapts" passively under physical laws to below 0C temperatures by changing into ice. Likewise mountains are "adapting" to rain fall errosion to become errosion free plains, etc.

You seem to have abandoned your post 37 false claim that evolution is "purposeful" and "directed." - that was my main objective. If all that separates our POVs now is how broad the definition of "adaptation" is - then we can terminate the discussion. Definitions are always to some extent arbitary.

I do not consider things that just happen to you buy chance and give you a reproductive advantage (like winning a million dollar lottery or a comic ray induced genetic change that makes your sperm more resistent to vaginal Ph.) to be an "adaptation" - I consider these sort of things to only passively confir a reproductive "advantage" upon you - not to be your "adaptation", but if you want to consider these passive chance changes to be within the definition of "adaptation" - that is OK by me, or at least not worth further discssion.

You seem to have abandoned your post 37 false claim that evolution is "purposeful" and "directed." - that was my main objective. You were "acting" in a goal-directed way towards the purpose of "having me abandon" my false claim?
And you're now "happy" that this purpose seems to have been achieved?
I do not consider things that just happen to you buy chance and give you a reproductive advantage (like winning a million dollar lottery or a comic ray induced genetic change that makes your sperm more resistent to vaginal Ph.) to be an "adaptation" - I consider these sort of things to only passively confir a reproductive "advantage" upon you - not to be your "adaptation"Right. An adaptation is a use.
Using something is adapting it, like adapting a rock as a missile (by throwing a rock), or as a hammer.

You could use your head, much like a hammer; see if you can bust your keyboard with it (or see if anything purposeful-looking appears on the viewscreen).

You were "acting" in a goal-directed way towards the purpose of "having me abandon" my false claim?...Yes. Thanks for doing so. Complex organisms do have behavoirs which have purpose to themselves - but probably not in / from a much larger POV. I have spent much of my life teaching - old habits are hard to change. Why should I even try, if I enjoy doing that?

Yes. Thanks for doing so. Complex organisms do have behavoirs which have purpose to themselves - but probably not in / from a much larger POV. I have spent much of my life teaching - old habits are hard to change. Why should I even try, if I enjoy doing that?

How could you try? At least from that larger POV, it would either happen or not.

PS to Hipparchia:
Yes I was mistaken the word adaptation does appear once near the end of your text in Italics, but it is only in the phrase: "...those with which they come into competition, or better adaptation ..." clearly again emphasizing that it is the selection of those with genes already changed by chance that are more fit in the competive struggle for sending your genes down into the next generation. Not the slightest hint that adaptaion is directing or causing any part of the slow transformation of the spieces into a new one. There is no purpose no direction - Only very many accidental copy errror (or genetic changes by agent like cosmic rays) the vast majority of which are less adapted, but occasionally one is better adapted. Note that the genes did not adapt - they were selected for the chance produced varriations. No direction, not by God, not by Darwin, not by the enviroment - it is all "purposeless chance."You seem to be hung up on the idea (to me a faulty one) that if adaptation is part of the process not the result then this somehow implies direction and purpose. I certainly do no see it that way.

With the children in bed last night I spent a couple of hours reading Gould's work and his comments on Darwin's Origin. Everywhere, including the passage I quoted above, it seems to me that Darwin and Gould both see adaptation as part of the process. Since you look at the same material and see it differently I think we are now at a point in the discussion where further repetition of our views would be pointless. Therefore I shall respectfully withdraw at this point and wish you well.
Best wishes,
Hipparchia.

if adaptation is part of the process not the result then this ... implies direction and purpose.It implies direction because adapted organisms (ones that capitalise on any advantage) survive and reproduce. Organisms that adapt, are purposeful. That's what purposeful means: "adaptive", also "autonomous, goal driven behaviour", means direction or purpose too.
it seems to me that Darwin and Gould both see adaptation as part of the process.
Darwin was intrigued, by the Galapagos fauna, and the radiation of homologous forms he could see
(but he didn't use the finches in his treatise, and "missed" an obvious example that supported his theory).

In conclusion: Life is purposeful.

Evolution is directed, by two players, or "sides" of a coin. One is probabilistic, one is deterministic, or controlled.

Genetic change is a modulation (of information).

Phenotypes are agents, that get their "adaptiveness" tested on the test-track of Life (i.e. the whole show: lifeforms, the planet, all the interactions and competing agencies).

"Life and Evolution" is complex, but controlled with "simple" moves, all the same. Evolution is, in principle, a simple idea; you might say a "natural" idea.

It implies direction because adapted organisms (ones that capitalise on any advantage) survive and reproduce.Direction implies predetermination. The direction of evolution is a path that has been taken, not a path that will be taken.

In conclusion: LIfe is purposeful.Only in the sense that it struggles to survive and reproduce: which is pretty much a fair paraphrase of Darwin.
Why does it struggle to survive and reproduce? Because if this were not one of its heritable characteristics it would be unlikely to have any offspring.
There is no Purpose here. Move along please. Nothing to see.

The direction of evolution is a path that has been taken, not a path that will be taken.Quite. What does this say? So there is a direction, like an arrow. An evolution, a divergence which converges "here and there"?
There is no Purpose here.But obviously, there is NOT "no purpose". This is because: I INTEND to correct your incorrect POV. To this purpose, or end, I submit that:

There is purpose. It's here and it's there.
What was it your children heard you tell them, have you asked them about what it means? I mean, have you gotten any of them to tell you what they think it is, and what "drives" it? Have you communicated your ideas or Charles' and Jay's ideas?

You see this thing called purpose all around you, do you not? Why do you see things "moving around", not chaotically, but in a purposeful, autonomous way?

You behave, that is, you act, in an autonomous, goal-directed way, when you're conscious, i.e. "awake". Why do you?

Where does Darwin, or Gould say "there is no purpose", btw?

Two "entirely different" uses for some tool; adaptation (use); and purpose, are like, the same thing. Adaptation is purpose. So "Evolution has no adaptation" here?

You seem to be hung up on the idea (to me a faulty one) that if adaptation is part of the process not the result then this somehow implies direction and purpose. I certainly do no see it that way. ...Nor do I (see it that way). I am not "hung up" on that idea, but if Vkothii were logical then his acceptance that it is chance that makes every genetic change and selection is what determins which persist into later generation, he could logically be able to conclude that there is no "purpose" to this chance driven process called evolution.

I may appear to be "hung up" as I have tried to focus his attention on the fact that a species becoming more addapted is a RESULT of the process of evolution via the mechanis Darwing (and Wallace, before him) suggested. -Not any [part of the process itself.

Certainly, even if adaptaions were part of the process that by its-self still would not necessarily make evolution "purposeful" but if adapation (which for the indvidual usually does have a purpose) is not even part of the process, then his POV is clearly without any logical foundation.

We are basically in agreement that the chance driven changes of the genetic matrial makes it imposible for evolution to be either "directed" or have a "purpose." Both of us have also pointed out to him that unless there is a presumed knowledge of the very distant future, then direction is impossible. (We have a slight possible conflict here - IMHO, one can have direction without predestination - it is just that the direction is then built only on your assumptions as to what the future may be.)

In some sense, modern genetic enginnering is "direction" of some parts of evolution by man, but certainly we do not know future.

this chance driven process called evolution.You refuse to see that Evolution is NOT driven ONLY by chance.

Variation is the "random" part of the process. Adaptation is NOT random, it's equal to use.

Like using a tool, as I keep insisting, is the same as using a gene. For the straightforward reason that genes are tools. A genome is a toolkit. You can argue that genes don't get used, but it's an incorrect (invalid) argument, they do get used.

You are convinced that there is only a single agency,

This is wrong, there are two agencies, as I have pointed out (and you agreed previously, that there are actually two agencies).

Adaptation is purposeful. Adaptation is purpose.
Purpose is direction.
Do you know what the word "autonomous" means?

Can you find the page in "Origin of Species", where Darwin categorically states that "Biological evolution is without direction or purpose"? I haven't been able to track this down; so do you know where he said this in his treatise, or any other?

When did purpose arise? At what point did matter suddenly act purposely and did it at that moment extricate itself from causal chains that completely control it? If not how does purpose differ from something like vector?
Is it a biproduct of the complexity of the brain?
Aren't there ecosystems that are as complicated?

When did purpose arise? At what point did matter suddenly act purposely and did it at that moment extricate itself from causal chains that completely control it? If not how does purpose differ from something like vector?
Is it a biproduct of the complexity of the brain?
Aren't there ecosystems that are as complicated?

when did conscious awareness arise?

When did purpose arise? The same time that "meaning" arose?
At what point did matter suddenly act purposely and did it at that moment extricate itself from causal chains that completely control it?Matter has always "acted purpose[ful]ly". Is a planet in the "grip" of a star acting? Is it acting with purpose, by orbiting the same star? If a lump of rock falls out of the sky and kills someone, did it act with "purpose"?
If not how does purpose differ from something like vector?I 'spose the difference is that live things can act "independently"? A planet or a rock has no autonomy, but life does.

a species becoming more addapted is a RESULT of the process of evolutionThis is back-to front (like another incorrect statement you made).

The process of Evolution is not separate from organisms and selective pressures, it isn't independent.

It should say: "Evolution (of a species) is the result of the species actively adapting".
A species doesn't adapt because "of" Evolution. Evolution occurs because of adaptation (and selection). For the umptieth time.
... -Not any [part of the process itself.The process of evolution is "not any part of" the process.?? Of what process??

Once more:
Evolution "starts" with the chance variation of genes. The genes are then used with purpose (adaptively), which results in the best "users" surviving (more than the "not so good" users).
Therefore Evolution is purposeful, because organisms are purposeful (adaptive).
Evolution is directed, by those organisms which evolve.

Someone tear this apart with some blinding logic, I dare yas.
Or this: "Genetic changes don't make evolution. Adaptations don't make any either."

Quite. What does this say? So there is a direction, like an arrow. An evolution, a divergence which converges "here and there"?
But obviously, there is NOT "no purpose". This is because: I INTEND to correct your incorrect POV. To this purpose, or end, I submit that:

There is purpose. It's here and it's there.
What was it your children heard you tell them, have you asked them about what it means? I mean, have you gotten any of them to tell you what they think it is, and what "drives" it? Have you communicated your ideas or Charles' and Jay's ideas?

You see this thing called purpose all around you, do you not? Why do you see things "moving around", not chaotically, but in a purposeful, autonomous way?

You behave, that is, you act, in an autonomous, goal-directed way, when you're conscious, i.e. "awake". Why do you?

Where does Darwin, or Gould say "there is no purpose", btw?Strawman alert.
You are far too smart to have stumbled into the above line of argument. It is a deliberate tactic to derail the discussion by introduction of an irrelevant sideline.
I am not denying purpose in human actions. I am denying purpose and direction and predestination in evolution. While it is not a chaotic, random process (as you seem to display as the only alternative), for it follows its own 'rules' arising out of biochemistry and the general nature of things, there is no purpose to which it is reaching - or certainly no purpose that has been demonstrated.

And Darwin and Gould both note the absence of purpose implicitly throughout their works. Indeed Origin is, as Darwin noted, one long argument - and that argument is in part an argument for lack of purpose in evolution.

I am denying purpose and direction and predestination in evolutionWhere does "predestination" fit into the theory? Where does this idea come from? Does Darwin or Gould say something about predestined purposes? Can you quote either of them on predestination?
...it follows its own 'rules' arising out of biochemistry and the general nature of things, there is no purpose to which it is reaching - or certainly no purpose that has been demonstrated.But there is purpose, as I have said so many times, and here it is once more: things that are alive exhibit purpose. Life is purposeful. Evolution is NOT a distinct, separate "independent-of-life" process.
And Darwin and Gould both note the absence of purpose implicitly throughout their works.But you can't point to anywhere, or find anything in any of the stuff they've published that supports this? I'll be happy to look at anything you can provide that "implicitly" denies purpose.
Indeed Origin is, as Darwin noted, one long argument - and that argument is in part an argument for lack of purpose in evolution.In part? What part? Where does Charles Darwin comment that "Origin is a long argument ...for lack of purpose in Evolution"?

P.S. Why is purposeful goal-directed behaviour a sideline? I'm interested in how you get from: "life is purposeful", to "the evolution of life is not purposeful". It is purposeful in the sense that life (which is doing the evolving) is "full of purpose".
Perhaps you misinterpret what that actually means.

Comment:
Those who talk about the subjects of Evolution and Life (because they think they understand the subjects), are quite happy with words like "selection" and "adaptation". Or "advantage", "variation" "random mutation", etc.

There seems to be something of an aversion to the word "purpose".
Maybe this is because it's seen as a creationist or "predeterminist" argument, so must be avoided.

But it's a word, for god's sake. It means: "adaptation" or "use", that's all it means.

So if life is adaptive, then Evolution is adaptation. But there's the variation side of it - the random deck-shuffle for the next deal.
If life uses things, then Evolution is (the result of) "a use of things".

Perhaps you misinterpret what that actually means.
Perhaps you are incapable of expressing yourself clearly because you do not know what you are talking about.

"you do not know what you are talking about."

This looks like something a petulant little mind would think was meaningful.

But t'ain' no thang, auy?

Version 1:
(1) a [chance] change in some individual's genes which in some (usually a very small way) gives:
(2) that individual, on average, greater advantage than others in leaving his modified genes in the next generation.

Version 2:
Darwin clearly sees two agencies at work: variability and adaptation.
Variability is presented, the environment selects the fittest variations. The agency of selection.
Adaptation is use of the gene complement, which is directed at survival and replication. The agency of adaptation.

Version 3:
... if adaptation is part of the process not the result then this somehow implies direction and purpose. I certainly do no see it that way.
...it seems to me that Darwin and Gould both see adaptation as part of the process.

"you do not know what you are talking about."

This looks like something a petulant little mind would think was meaningful.
Quite true. However, that is not what I said. You have missed out the 'perhaps'.
Perhaps you do indeed lack communication skills and having this pointed out to you seems to go to the heart of your psyche and to upset you. That would be your problem, not mine.

What anyone thinks they have "pointed out" is perhaps not what they pointed out, after all.
No-one perhaps knows what they are talking about. Or expresses anything with any clarity because they don't, after all, know, that is, understand, the particular subject they are talking about.
Or they just think they know something.

Obfuscation.

Perhaps you misinterpret what that actually means.

Perhaps you are incapable of expressing yourself clearly because you do not know what you are talking about.Your manner of expressing yourself appears to clearly imply that "I don't know" something. This thing is "what I'm talking about".
But if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have said "Darwin and Gould both note the absence of purpose throughout their work", as if this somehow implies that Life is without purpose. You're sure you understand what either of them was talking about?

If you aren't happy with my implication that there are at least 3 separate versions of the subject (whatever the hell it is), are you up to addressing this apparent contradiction, or just as happy to leave it up to me to tear your, and Billy T's ideas apart (as they appear in that list), and demonstrate how they really aren't quite the "story", after all?

You're scared of a word, a little noun that starts with 'p', and means "use"? You ar