Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 18:37 (3691 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: That is the whole point of the inventive mechanism: once set in motion, it designs all forms of life, innovating, accumulating, expanding, all the way through to humans.
DAVID: Given the gaps in the fossil tree of evolution, the concept of an IM must account for the leaps in complexity. So far in our discussion, it doesn't do that. If by 'accumulating' you mean gaining experience by experimenting, once again, no itty-bitty steps are seen. That is why I call it semi-autonomous. Its instructional manual may provide guidelines for advancement, and I am not saying specific instructions.-By ‘accumulating' I mean that organisms carry with them the advancements made by previous generations. Once the eye has been invented, different organisms find different ways of using it, and they in turn come up with further innovations, and so evolution advances from single cell through multicellularity to the accumulated innovations that have led to ourselves. I'm afraid “guidelines for advancement” mean nothing to me. Guidelines provided by the limitations of the organisms themselves and their environment are clear enough, but you seem to be talking about guidelines on how to make eyes, ears, kidneys etc. in an instruction manual that does not give instructions. This, as you have said, is trying to have your cake and eat it. As regards the lack of fossils, maybe 1) they are there but haven't been found; 2) there are none because failed experiments leave no recognizable trace; 3) there were no transitional forms and each innovation worked: in theistic terms, this would mean God preprogrammed them 3.7 billion years ago, dabbled, or was clever enough to invent a mechanism that could create innovations that worked. If the problem of complexity can be solved by your God's preprogramming or dabbling, it can be solved by his IM.-dhw: Autonomous invention [...] is not your scenario, it's mine, as is clear from your reference above to humans and below to the Cambrian problem. 
DAVID: But this comment of yours avoids purpose, and I can't do that, because I see the purpose in everything. My guidelines offer some directionality to evolution. yes, we get the nerer-ending bushiness, but for me it esplains humans, when none were ever necessary under Darwin guidelines.-Same answer as usual: no multicellular organisms - from dinosaurs to dodos, from trilobites to trout, from hyenas to humans - were ever necessary, since bacteria have been so successful. I too see purpose in everything: survival and improvement. That explains the bush. What purpose do you see in dinosaurs and dodos if the purpose was directionality towards humans?
 
dhw: ...an autonomous IM explains it all. Organisms go their own higgledy-piggledy way.
DAVID: I still insist 'semi-autonomous', but I could assume that God invented an inventing mechanism, so He could just sit back and watch. Not pre-programming and not dabbling, just evolving in semi-controlled directions, toward humans.-Please explain how the mechanism can be “semi-autonomous” and “semi-controlled” if there is neither preprogramming nor dabbling and God is simply sitting back watching. Your cake is rapidly disappearing.
 
dhw: You were telescoping two issues: 1) Was the mechanism designed by your God? 2) Did/does it have a purpose? 
DAVID: The point is clear to me. The IM must be invented by God in order to do the planning for Cambrian animals that can live. The complexity of the Cambrian requires exquisite planning, just as a semi-independent IM literally cannot invent itself, the complexity of its required advance planning ability is far too great.-As the discussion is now about the IM's autonomy and a possible purpose for evolution, I am for the moment taking the theistic line that the IM was invented by your God. If you concede that an autonomous IM can explain the Cambrian, your own problem with the Cambrian is solved. If you don't, you are back with your 3.7 billion-year programme or your dabbling.
 
dhw: Of course we can't read his mind (if he exists at all), but when you claim that his aim was to produce humans, you open the gate to alternative interpretations.

DAVID: If we can't read His mind why try? In regard to humans arriving on the scene, they did and they are a most unusual result for evolution, way beyond anything necessary for Darwin's survival approach. Therefore, survival is not a key evolutionary condition. If there is purpose, we are the purposeful intent.-See above for the non-necessity of all species, including humans. It is you who insist on trying to read God's mind, by claiming that humans are his purpose for evolution. If he created an inventive mechanism and sat back and watched, that mechanism was left to do its own thing. As above, I am suggesting it would have had two purposes: to survive, and if possible to improve. Changes in the environment would demand changes in the organism (survival through adaptation) but would also provide opportunities for new organs and new forms of behaviour (innovation). Hence evolution. Hence the bush. And despite our advanced intelligence and inventiveness, I would suggest we humans pursue the same two purposes. Why does this mean that the great higgledy-piggledy process was set in motion in order to create us?