Question for Atheists ( hoping for a interesting debate)
Why do Roses 🌹 have thorns?
36-40, M
ElwoodBlues · M
NOT roses, NOT thorns, instead human genetics and other primate genetics.
FROM newjaninev2
_________________________
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses.
This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes.
That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on [/\b]exactly the same place[/b] on both genomes.
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
_________________________
All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function in the original manner. Such genes are called pseudogenes.
Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-?-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C, which is essential for proper metabolism.
I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you may know, these genes are composed of many, many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (the human genome has 64 billion nucleotides}. The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene.
Across all primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene the same nucleotide carries the mutation that is responsible.
Now, why would this be?
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created all the species they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the same nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around 2,000 such pseudogenes.
3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to common descent during evolution.
_________________________
Why restrict ourselves to our common ancestry with all other apes?
We can easily go much further back and and see that humans have common ancestry with fish and with reptiles
In a female mammal there is a pair of tubes along which eggs travel from the ovaries to the uterus. These are called the Fallopian Tubes (salpinges). Sometimes when a human egg is ejected from an ovary it does not make it into the fallopian tube. This is because, quite oddly, the fallopian tube is not actually connected to the ovary. Rather, the opening of the fallopian tube envelops the ovary, like a too-large garden hose resting on a too-small spigot. The two are not actually attached, and sometimes an egg gets squirted out of the ovary and into the abdominal cavity instead of into the fallopian tube.
When this happens, it is usually of no consequence. The egg simply loses viability after a few days and is resorbed by the peritoneum - the thin wall of highly vascular tissue surrounding the abdominal cavity. No problem.
However, if an egg falls into the abdominal cavity and sperm arrives within a day or so, it might find this egg and fertilise it. The resulting embryo, completely unaware of how far it is from home, begins the process of growth, division, and tunnelling into whatever nearby tissue that it can find, usually the peritoneum but occasionally the outer covering of the large or small intestine, liver, or spleen. This is called an abdominal pregnancy
Abdominal pregnancies pose serious risks. In developing countries, they usually result in the death of the mother. In developed countries, they are easily spotted with ultrasounds and treated with surgical intervention to remove the doomed embryo and repair any damaged tissue or bleeding.
Despite creationists’ laughable claims of an ‘intelligent designer’, abdominal pregnancies are 100% the result of unintelligent design. Any reasonable plumber would have attached the fallopian tube to the ovary, thereby preventing tragic and often fatal mishaps. An ‘intelligent designer’ would never have created the small gap between the human ovary and Fallopian tube, so that an egg must cross this gap before it can travel through the tube and implant in the uterus.
In reality, the gap is a remnant of our fish and reptilian ancestors, who shed eggs directly from the ovary to the outside of their bodies. The Fallopian tube is an imperfect connection because it evolved later as an add-on in mammals.
_________________________
Unlike other primates, humans walk on two legs (bipedalism). Gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orang-utans amble about using their feet and their knuckles (quadrupedalism). However, moving around on four limbs can be inefficient. On open ground, bipedalism bestows an evolutionary advantage by allowing humans to move much faster than other primates, but that comes at a cost (with evolution, there are no free lunches)
The intestines and other visceral organs are held together with thin sheets of connective tissue called mesenteries. Mesenteries are elastic and act to keep the gut loosely in place. Because we are bipedal, with an upright posture, these thin sheets should be suspended from the top of the abdominal cavity. Instead, they are attached to the back of the abdominal cavity. That makes sense for the other quadrupedal primates, because their gut is then well-supported when they walk on all fours. However, it makes no sense for us... unless we have common ancestry with the quadrupedal primates.
Because of the stress of supporting our internal organs from the back, the mesenteries can easily tear, causing internal haemorrhaging and damage to our gut, requiring surgical intervention (this is a common injury in traffic accidents… mainly affecting those stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt). It can also happen to people who sit for long periods of time (drivers, office workers, etc) simply because of the stress and strain of the gut being attached to the back, rather than the top, of the abdominal cavity.
FROM newjaninev2
_________________________
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses.
This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes.
That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on [/\b]exactly the same place[/b] on both genomes.
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
_________________________
All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function in the original manner. Such genes are called pseudogenes.
Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-?-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C, which is essential for proper metabolism.
I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you may know, these genes are composed of many, many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (the human genome has 64 billion nucleotides}. The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene.
Across all primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene the same nucleotide carries the mutation that is responsible.
Now, why would this be?
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created all the species they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the same nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around 2,000 such pseudogenes.
3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to common descent during evolution.
_________________________
Why restrict ourselves to our common ancestry with all other apes?
We can easily go much further back and and see that humans have common ancestry with fish and with reptiles
In a female mammal there is a pair of tubes along which eggs travel from the ovaries to the uterus. These are called the Fallopian Tubes (salpinges). Sometimes when a human egg is ejected from an ovary it does not make it into the fallopian tube. This is because, quite oddly, the fallopian tube is not actually connected to the ovary. Rather, the opening of the fallopian tube envelops the ovary, like a too-large garden hose resting on a too-small spigot. The two are not actually attached, and sometimes an egg gets squirted out of the ovary and into the abdominal cavity instead of into the fallopian tube.
When this happens, it is usually of no consequence. The egg simply loses viability after a few days and is resorbed by the peritoneum - the thin wall of highly vascular tissue surrounding the abdominal cavity. No problem.
However, if an egg falls into the abdominal cavity and sperm arrives within a day or so, it might find this egg and fertilise it. The resulting embryo, completely unaware of how far it is from home, begins the process of growth, division, and tunnelling into whatever nearby tissue that it can find, usually the peritoneum but occasionally the outer covering of the large or small intestine, liver, or spleen. This is called an abdominal pregnancy
Abdominal pregnancies pose serious risks. In developing countries, they usually result in the death of the mother. In developed countries, they are easily spotted with ultrasounds and treated with surgical intervention to remove the doomed embryo and repair any damaged tissue or bleeding.
Despite creationists’ laughable claims of an ‘intelligent designer’, abdominal pregnancies are 100% the result of unintelligent design. Any reasonable plumber would have attached the fallopian tube to the ovary, thereby preventing tragic and often fatal mishaps. An ‘intelligent designer’ would never have created the small gap between the human ovary and Fallopian tube, so that an egg must cross this gap before it can travel through the tube and implant in the uterus.
In reality, the gap is a remnant of our fish and reptilian ancestors, who shed eggs directly from the ovary to the outside of their bodies. The Fallopian tube is an imperfect connection because it evolved later as an add-on in mammals.
_________________________
Unlike other primates, humans walk on two legs (bipedalism). Gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orang-utans amble about using their feet and their knuckles (quadrupedalism). However, moving around on four limbs can be inefficient. On open ground, bipedalism bestows an evolutionary advantage by allowing humans to move much faster than other primates, but that comes at a cost (with evolution, there are no free lunches)
The intestines and other visceral organs are held together with thin sheets of connective tissue called mesenteries. Mesenteries are elastic and act to keep the gut loosely in place. Because we are bipedal, with an upright posture, these thin sheets should be suspended from the top of the abdominal cavity. Instead, they are attached to the back of the abdominal cavity. That makes sense for the other quadrupedal primates, because their gut is then well-supported when they walk on all fours. However, it makes no sense for us... unless we have common ancestry with the quadrupedal primates.
Because of the stress of supporting our internal organs from the back, the mesenteries can easily tear, causing internal haemorrhaging and damage to our gut, requiring surgical intervention (this is a common injury in traffic accidents… mainly affecting those stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt). It can also happen to people who sit for long periods of time (drivers, office workers, etc) simply because of the stress and strain of the gut being attached to the back, rather than the top, of the abdominal cavity.
View 14 more replies »
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Why does the behavior of genes imitate goal-oriented agency, with ruthless precision across all species and environments?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Heavenlywarrior The only ''behaviour' you'll see from genes is replication... over and over as they match backwards into the future.
The only 'goal' is to be just good enough to make it into the next replication
What precision? If it's good enough to achieve replication... that'll do. Our own species is replete with battle damage, disease, and physiological flaws that work ceaselessly to limit replicative potential. We are the last surviving hominid species and yet we spend all our time admiring ourselves in the mirror.
Our species (like all others) exists within a film that is only a few metres high and wrapped around a small rock somewhere in a hostile universe. If that environment alters by even a small margin, we die very quickly, and we cannot leave our environment unless we take it with us.
goal-oriented agency
The only 'goal' is to be just good enough to make it into the next replication
with ruthless precision across all species and environments?
What precision? If it's good enough to achieve replication... that'll do. Our own species is replete with battle damage, disease, and physiological flaws that work ceaselessly to limit replicative potential. We are the last surviving hominid species and yet we spend all our time admiring ourselves in the mirror.
Our species (like all others) exists within a film that is only a few metres high and wrapped around a small rock somewhere in a hostile universe. If that environment alters by even a small margin, we die very quickly, and we cannot leave our environment unless we take it with us.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 If the only “goal” is replication, then you’ve already acknowledged goal-oriented behavior — you're just restricting it to a minimalist frame and denying its implications. But replication is not passive: it’s a functional process requiring fidelity, error correction, regulation, and timing — all of which are signs of directed coordination, not blind chaos.
So ask yourself: Why does matter bother to preserve itself through replication at all — and do so with increasing complexity? Why not simply decay?
If "just good enough" gets selected, what explains the rise of highly optimized, redundant, and anticipatory systems — from quorum sensing in bacteria to error-checking in DNA polymerases?
And most importantly:
If genes only “match backwards into the future,” why does forward-functioning information persist and outperform neutral drift?
You're not escaping teleonomy — you’re just calling it “bare survival” and pretending that function doesn’t imply a system acting in some relation to outcome. But outcome requires direction.
You’re mistaking vulnerability for lack of precision. The fact that life persists in a narrow band of conditions doesn’t argue against precision — it demonstrates it. That razor-thin environmental tolerance requires tightly regulated systems, fine-tuned biochemistry, and information-driven responses just to function at all. If our physiology were sloppy, we wouldn’t last a second in this so-called "hostile universe."
Even our flaws — like immune overreactions or genetic bottlenecks — occur within frameworks that still maintain adaptive function across generations. Precision doesn't mean perfection; it means systematic, regulated behavior toward survival thresholds.
If there’s no precision, how do organisms maintain homeostasis within such tight biochemical limits (e.g., pH, temperature, oxygen saturation)?
So ask yourself: Why does matter bother to preserve itself through replication at all — and do so with increasing complexity? Why not simply decay?
If "just good enough" gets selected, what explains the rise of highly optimized, redundant, and anticipatory systems — from quorum sensing in bacteria to error-checking in DNA polymerases?
And most importantly:
If genes only “match backwards into the future,” why does forward-functioning information persist and outperform neutral drift?
You're not escaping teleonomy — you’re just calling it “bare survival” and pretending that function doesn’t imply a system acting in some relation to outcome. But outcome requires direction.
You’re mistaking vulnerability for lack of precision. The fact that life persists in a narrow band of conditions doesn’t argue against precision — it demonstrates it. That razor-thin environmental tolerance requires tightly regulated systems, fine-tuned biochemistry, and information-driven responses just to function at all. If our physiology were sloppy, we wouldn’t last a second in this so-called "hostile universe."
Even our flaws — like immune overreactions or genetic bottlenecks — occur within frameworks that still maintain adaptive function across generations. Precision doesn't mean perfection; it means systematic, regulated behavior toward survival thresholds.
If there’s no precision, how do organisms maintain homeostasis within such tight biochemical limits (e.g., pH, temperature, oxygen saturation)?
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior says
(2) I'm not making the assumptions you describe, but I AM making the assumption that Occam's razor has validity: that - everything else being equal - fewer postulates lead to better theories.
(3) I'm limiting my discussion to testable hypotheses. That's why I mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's classic example of a "theory" designed to be non-testable. It's fun and easy to construct non-testable "theories." And I'm OK with them in a philosophy classroom. But science is the domain of testable hypotheses. I guess the science classroom needs enough philosophy to distinguish the testable from the non-testable.
@Heavenlywarrior says
@Heavenlywarrior says
Widening our perspective, that massive energy flow is a crucial part of our environment. And environment is what does the natural selection. Different environments select for different features. That's what Darwin noticed among the Galápagos finches: slightly different environments selected for slightly different features.
Each of the different Galápagos environments doesn't have its own goal or intention. Instead, living things interacting in that environment are differentially selected by each environment. You can, optionally, assume goals and intentions and controlling intelligence if you like, but these assumptions are not necessary to explain the world around us.
You're assuming that only material, mechanistic causes are legitimate scientific explanations — and that any suggestion of non-local organizing principles, informational fields, or non-random structure emerging from within nature must be “superstition.”
(1) I've never used the word "superstition" here; don't try to put words like that in my mouth.(2) I'm not making the assumptions you describe, but I AM making the assumption that Occam's razor has validity: that - everything else being equal - fewer postulates lead to better theories.
(3) I'm limiting my discussion to testable hypotheses. That's why I mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's classic example of a "theory" designed to be non-testable. It's fun and easy to construct non-testable "theories." And I'm OK with them in a philosophy classroom. But science is the domain of testable hypotheses. I guess the science classroom needs enough philosophy to distinguish the testable from the non-testable.
@Heavenlywarrior says
Biological systems exhibit signs of anticipatory, goal-directed behavior (teleonomy) that cannot be fully accounted for by random mutation and natural selection alone — and instead follow predictive patterns consistent with information-field dynamics, similar to self-organizing systems in physics.
Nope. No need to assume anticipatory behavior (Occam's razor applied here). In the simplified model I mentioned elsewhere, on average 32 mutations are harmful and one is helpful. There's no anticipation there; just repeated rolling of dice. And, since we know that about 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct, it seems that losing rolls of the dice are what every species can expect in the long term.similar to self-organizing systems in physics
I majored in physics and I'm a little familiar with Shannon's theorems. Perhaps you'll have to explain further what you mean by that, but if you're referring to crystalization, that's another phenomenon driven by energy flow (see my next comment regarding energy flow).@Heavenlywarrior says
you’re applying blind faith to the idea that blind mutation explains all order.
No, I'm not. Another major driver of order on planet Earth is the 173,000 terawatts of solar energy hitting the Earth at all times; about 340 watts per square meter. Without that tremendous energy flow onto and then off of the Earth, the "ordering" doesn't happen. Some folks try to argue that life contradicts the laws of thermodynamics; they don't realize that those laws only apply to closed systems and the Earth is FAR from closed.Widening our perspective, that massive energy flow is a crucial part of our environment. And environment is what does the natural selection. Different environments select for different features. That's what Darwin noticed among the Galápagos finches: slightly different environments selected for slightly different features.
Each of the different Galápagos environments doesn't have its own goal or intention. Instead, living things interacting in that environment are differentially selected by each environment. You can, optionally, assume goals and intentions and controlling intelligence if you like, but these assumptions are not necessary to explain the world around us.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues 1) Fair enough — you didn’t use the word “superstition,” but your framing implies that any explanation beyond mechanistic materialism is unscientific, even if it's grounded in empirical pattern, coherence, and structure. That’s not superstition — that’s inference.
(2) Occam’s Razor isn’t about the simplest idea — it’s about the least assumptive explanation that still accounts for the observed complexity. Random mutation alone doesn’t explain the emergence of functional order — it describes a process. But processes require a canvas. Why does this canvas — nature itself — support the consistent emergence of coherent, adaptive, and mathematically patterned structures?
If particles emerge from vacuum fluctuations, why do those fluctuations follow probabilistic rules at all?
(3) The problem with claiming “only testable hypotheses belong to science” is that you’re using a philosophical rule — falsifiability — to define science, while denying philosophy a seat at the table.
We accept dark matter and dark energy not because we see them directly, but because their effects are empirically measurable. Why, then, should we dismiss the idea of an underlying informational field if it accounts for persistent, observable teleonomic patterns in biology?
If natural selection is non-directed but consistently produces functionally coherent systems, isn’t that indistinguishable from a deeper organizing principle at work?
You're invoking Occam’s Razor to dismiss anticipation — but what’s actually more parsimonious:
Believing nature accidentally produces complex, functional systems through millions of failures?
Or acknowledging that reality, like other known physical systems (e.g. fractals, turbulence, wave dynamics), may follow intrinsic self-organizing informational rules?
If it's just random "dice rolls," why do those rolls consistently generate coherent, functional, and recursive adaptations — not just noise?
You cite the 99% extinction rate as if that disproves direction — but what it really proves is selection pressure within constraints. Evolution isn’t just a pile of corpses — it’s a story of increasing structural complexity and functional refinement, even as systems go extinct. That itself suggests something more than random walk.
And if there’s no anticipation in biological systems:
Why do so many adaptations — mimicry, toxin resistance, immune systems — act in advance of environmental challenges, not merely reactively?
Where do we ever see statistically predictable optimization emerge from random failure without a framework?
If it’s truly random, why don’t we see just a chaos of failed forms, instead of organisms with layers of interdependent function?
Self-organizing systems — like Benard cells, laser coherence, or dissipative structures (Prigogine) — don’t just form because of energy flow alone, but because energy is organized along certain boundary conditions, governed by informational constraints.
In these cases, form emerges predictably when the system reaches certain thresholds. Why shouldn’t biological systems — which operate far-from-equilibrium and depend on nonlinear interactions — follow similar informational attractors?
Crystallization is not “just” about energy; it’s about how that energy gets minimized into structured, low-entropy configurations, based on rules encoded in the lattice and surrounding environment. That’s not mystical — that’s formal information theory applied to physics.
So my question to you is:
If physics accepts emergent structure via energy + information constraints, why do you assume biological teleonomy can't arise from similar embedded logic?
Isn’t it less scientific to exclude a known pattern of organization simply because it operates at a biological scale?
(2) Occam’s Razor isn’t about the simplest idea — it’s about the least assumptive explanation that still accounts for the observed complexity. Random mutation alone doesn’t explain the emergence of functional order — it describes a process. But processes require a canvas. Why does this canvas — nature itself — support the consistent emergence of coherent, adaptive, and mathematically patterned structures?
If particles emerge from vacuum fluctuations, why do those fluctuations follow probabilistic rules at all?
(3) The problem with claiming “only testable hypotheses belong to science” is that you’re using a philosophical rule — falsifiability — to define science, while denying philosophy a seat at the table.
We accept dark matter and dark energy not because we see them directly, but because their effects are empirically measurable. Why, then, should we dismiss the idea of an underlying informational field if it accounts for persistent, observable teleonomic patterns in biology?
If natural selection is non-directed but consistently produces functionally coherent systems, isn’t that indistinguishable from a deeper organizing principle at work?
You're invoking Occam’s Razor to dismiss anticipation — but what’s actually more parsimonious:
Believing nature accidentally produces complex, functional systems through millions of failures?
Or acknowledging that reality, like other known physical systems (e.g. fractals, turbulence, wave dynamics), may follow intrinsic self-organizing informational rules?
If it's just random "dice rolls," why do those rolls consistently generate coherent, functional, and recursive adaptations — not just noise?
You cite the 99% extinction rate as if that disproves direction — but what it really proves is selection pressure within constraints. Evolution isn’t just a pile of corpses — it’s a story of increasing structural complexity and functional refinement, even as systems go extinct. That itself suggests something more than random walk.
And if there’s no anticipation in biological systems:
Why do so many adaptations — mimicry, toxin resistance, immune systems — act in advance of environmental challenges, not merely reactively?
Where do we ever see statistically predictable optimization emerge from random failure without a framework?
If it’s truly random, why don’t we see just a chaos of failed forms, instead of organisms with layers of interdependent function?
Self-organizing systems — like Benard cells, laser coherence, or dissipative structures (Prigogine) — don’t just form because of energy flow alone, but because energy is organized along certain boundary conditions, governed by informational constraints.
In these cases, form emerges predictably when the system reaches certain thresholds. Why shouldn’t biological systems — which operate far-from-equilibrium and depend on nonlinear interactions — follow similar informational attractors?
Crystallization is not “just” about energy; it’s about how that energy gets minimized into structured, low-entropy configurations, based on rules encoded in the lattice and surrounding environment. That’s not mystical — that’s formal information theory applied to physics.
So my question to you is:
If physics accepts emergent structure via energy + information constraints, why do you assume biological teleonomy can't arise from similar embedded logic?
Isn’t it less scientific to exclude a known pattern of organization simply because it operates at a biological scale?
ElwoodBlues · M
Through natural selection.
Mutations sometimes gives plants different skin textures. Plants with tougher skins and/or bumpier surfaces got eaten less by herbivores. Thus, without consciousness or intention, natural selection resulted in various features that tended to prolong life and reproduction.
BTW, it's estimated that around 10% of all plant species have some form of defensive spines, thorns, or prickles. Other plants evolved chemical defenses, making them taste bad or render the eater sick. All thru natural selection.
On the other hand, many plant species depend on herbivores to spread their seeds. So, thru the same blind mechanism of natural selection, they evolved tasty fruits with hard seed cases. The animal consumes the fruit and emits the seeds in fecal matter that is also a natural plant fertilizer.
Mutations sometimes gives plants different skin textures. Plants with tougher skins and/or bumpier surfaces got eaten less by herbivores. Thus, without consciousness or intention, natural selection resulted in various features that tended to prolong life and reproduction.
BTW, it's estimated that around 10% of all plant species have some form of defensive spines, thorns, or prickles. Other plants evolved chemical defenses, making them taste bad or render the eater sick. All thru natural selection.
On the other hand, many plant species depend on herbivores to spread their seeds. So, thru the same blind mechanism of natural selection, they evolved tasty fruits with hard seed cases. The animal consumes the fruit and emits the seeds in fecal matter that is also a natural plant fertilizer.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior Galileo did not run afoul of scripture, of anything in the Bible. Galileo ran afoul of the master reasoner himself, Aristotle.
The church of the 1500s & 1600s had so absorbed Aristotle's geocentric cosmology that they considered heliocentrism to be heresy. The church employed reason (or at least what they considered to reason) to find Galileo in error, regardless of what he had reported about the moons of Jupiter.
It can be very very hard to distinguish reason from intuition. Reason alone gets us all kinds of great math theorems, but reason alone really doesn't tell us much about the 5 billion year evolution of this planet. Detailed observation, combined with reason, and with a large dollop of skepticism, gets us to theories that more or less fit the facts.
But never leave that skepticism behind. I'm gonna end this with three quotes from a late great bongo drum playing Nobel prize winning physicist.
“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
— Richard P. Feynman
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard P. Feynman
The church of the 1500s & 1600s had so absorbed Aristotle's geocentric cosmology that they considered heliocentrism to be heresy. The church employed reason (or at least what they considered to reason) to find Galileo in error, regardless of what he had reported about the moons of Jupiter.
It can be very very hard to distinguish reason from intuition. Reason alone gets us all kinds of great math theorems, but reason alone really doesn't tell us much about the 5 billion year evolution of this planet. Detailed observation, combined with reason, and with a large dollop of skepticism, gets us to theories that more or less fit the facts.
But never leave that skepticism behind. I'm gonna end this with three quotes from a late great bongo drum playing Nobel prize winning physicist.
“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
— Richard P. Feynman
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard P. Feynman
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues thanks
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior What I've posted so far are arguments about why natural selection doesn't need 'intent' or 'intelligence' or 'goals.' I'm adding a LOOOONG post at top level that has positive evidence for evolution of humans from related species. It's not mine, it was originally written by @newjaninev2.
Pherick · 41-45, M
Evolution isn't smart. Its generation after generation after generation of mistakes where one has a mistake that works better, so it survives longer and makes more babies than its friends.
So one rose, through a random mutation grew some nubs, those nubs made it harder for the herbivores to eat it, so it survived longer and put out more babies.
Then as those babies had nubs, some of those babies (or their babies) had longer nubs, and survived longer, over and over again. Doing this until eventually roses have the sharp thorns we see today which allows them to put off herbivores quite well. Unless you have herbivores evolving at the same time ... which of course they do. Giraffe for example have very muscular thick tongues and can eat thorny foliage.
Its all a giant web of amazing accidents.
So one rose, through a random mutation grew some nubs, those nubs made it harder for the herbivores to eat it, so it survived longer and put out more babies.
Then as those babies had nubs, some of those babies (or their babies) had longer nubs, and survived longer, over and over again. Doing this until eventually roses have the sharp thorns we see today which allows them to put off herbivores quite well. Unless you have herbivores evolving at the same time ... which of course they do. Giraffe for example have very muscular thick tongues and can eat thorny foliage.
Its all a giant web of amazing accidents.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@Pherick If genes 'do certain things' and perform specific functions, who or what assigned those functions? Doesn’t saying a gene 'functions' in a particular way imply there’s a correct purpose — and if there’s a correct purpose, doesn’t that require intentional design or direction?
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Heavenlywarrior You keep assign "feelings" or "desires" to inanimate objects. Do genes have a "correct" way to function? Sure. They are supposed to propagate without error, however sometimes we get errors. Lots of genetic diseases out there caused by this. However some of our most useful traits as homo sapiens have come from "good" genetic errors. These "errors" actually turned out to be useful and let us survive longer and produce more babies with that same trait. Were they supposed to do that? Did someone direct them to do that? Nope. Evolution at work.
I mean if you want to give feelings/directions/desires to objects that don't have them, then I really can't stop you. To me its the same thing as assigning desires or feelings to a door. Does the door have feelings or desires about how well it shuts? I don't think so, I don't really care if you do, but without evidence of a door's feelings, I can't say they exist.
I mean if you want to give feelings/directions/desires to objects that don't have them, then I really can't stop you. To me its the same thing as assigning desires or feelings to a door. Does the door have feelings or desires about how well it shuts? I don't think so, I don't really care if you do, but without evidence of a door's feelings, I can't say they exist.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@Pherick this’ is a good response and thanks for entertaining.
FYI. I’m going to keep asking some questions until you are done with this lol.😂
If genes have a “correct” function — like replicating without error — where did the blueprint for that function come from?
How do you get a 'correct' way for molecules to behave without an underlying design?
In all other systems — machines, codes, languages — when we say something has a 'correct function,' we infer it was designed that way. Why make an exception for DNA, which is far more complex?
FYI. I’m going to keep asking some questions until you are done with this lol.😂
If genes have a “correct” function — like replicating without error — where did the blueprint for that function come from?
How do you get a 'correct' way for molecules to behave without an underlying design?
In all other systems — machines, codes, languages — when we say something has a 'correct function,' we infer it was designed that way. Why make an exception for DNA, which is far more complex?
hartfire · 61-69
To reduce the chances of being eaten.
From the World History Encyclopedia
"The rose that grows in many different forms in gardens all over the world today is an evolution of rose-like plants that lived in the northern hemisphere between 33 million and 23 million years ago. Traces of them have been found in the fossil record of the Oligocene epoch in Europe, Asia, and western North America.
"The climate in those times was largely temperate with plentiful insect life, conditions that are still favoured by roses today. Five-petaled flowers, distinctive oval serrated leaves and colourful hips – characteristics that can be found in wild rose species today – differentiated them from other plant remains when the fossils were examined..." Much more on the rose's cultivation history is available in the Ecyclopedia; see it article, "A Brief History of the Rose".
Attemps to breed out thorns have failed because all versions had weak roots and stems, poor disease resistance, and could not be cloned.
Hybrids of roses do not breed from seed and can only be cloned.
This leads to the conclusion that evolution strongly favours the rose's need for thorns.
From the World History Encyclopedia
"The rose that grows in many different forms in gardens all over the world today is an evolution of rose-like plants that lived in the northern hemisphere between 33 million and 23 million years ago. Traces of them have been found in the fossil record of the Oligocene epoch in Europe, Asia, and western North America.
"The climate in those times was largely temperate with plentiful insect life, conditions that are still favoured by roses today. Five-petaled flowers, distinctive oval serrated leaves and colourful hips – characteristics that can be found in wild rose species today – differentiated them from other plant remains when the fossils were examined..." Much more on the rose's cultivation history is available in the Ecyclopedia; see it article, "A Brief History of the Rose".
Attemps to breed out thorns have failed because all versions had weak roots and stems, poor disease resistance, and could not be cloned.
Hybrids of roses do not breed from seed and can only be cloned.
This leads to the conclusion that evolution strongly favours the rose's need for thorns.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Drop grains of sand randomly — you get a mess.
Drop grains that just happen to stack into a sandcastle? Consistently? That’s not just randomness.
What mechanism ensures that mutations are not just noise, but keep leading to increased fitness and function over time?
You say 'fitness determines survival.' But fitness itself is just a label we give in hindsight to purposeful-looking outcomes. What you can’t explain is why life keeps improving as if it's being pulled toward function.
That’s the contradiction: you argue there's no purpose — yet everything evolves as if it has one.
Drop grains that just happen to stack into a sandcastle? Consistently? That’s not just randomness.
What mechanism ensures that mutations are not just noise, but keep leading to increased fitness and function over time?
You say 'fitness determines survival.' But fitness itself is just a label we give in hindsight to purposeful-looking outcomes. What you can’t explain is why life keeps improving as if it's being pulled toward function.
That’s the contradiction: you argue there's no purpose — yet everything evolves as if it has one.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Heavenlywarrior
Did I say that?
reproductive fitness is shown by genes being passed to the next generation, but until that moment fitness cannot be known
You might well be forgetting the role of the ever-changing environment.
Genes march backwards into the future... they cannot know what environment they will find next.
fitness determines survival
Did I say that?
reproductive fitness is shown by genes being passed to the next generation, but until that moment fitness cannot be known
You might well be forgetting the role of the ever-changing environment.
Genes march backwards into the future... they cannot know what environment they will find next.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
If one asked what I actually think and especially nowadays , here it is:
I propose that life exists inside a vast, relational field — call it electromagnetic, quantum informational, or something we don’t yet fully understand — where all particles, organisms, and minds are entangled in a shared matrix of communication.
This field doesn't "choose" with emotions. But it filters based on what preserves structure, stability, and meaning. What we see as evolution is not a blind watchmaker — it’s a dynamic feedback system favoring intelligence and self-awareness over time.
Many call it God.
I propose that life exists inside a vast, relational field — call it electromagnetic, quantum informational, or something we don’t yet fully understand — where all particles, organisms, and minds are entangled in a shared matrix of communication.
This field doesn't "choose" with emotions. But it filters based on what preserves structure, stability, and meaning. What we see as evolution is not a blind watchmaker — it’s a dynamic feedback system favoring intelligence and self-awareness over time.
Many call it God.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues You're absolutely right that science is built on testable hypotheses. So let me state mine in that framework — but first, let me point out that your own claim rests not only on data, but on a philosophical assumption:
You're assuming that only material, mechanistic causes are legitimate scientific explanations — and that any suggestion of non-local organizing principles, informational fields, or non-random structure emerging from within nature must be “superstition.”
That’s not science. That’s materialist metaphysics. And it’s not testable either.
You're assuming that only material, mechanistic causes are legitimate scientific explanations — and that any suggestion of non-local organizing principles, informational fields, or non-random structure emerging from within nature must be “superstition.”
That’s not science. That’s materialist metaphysics. And it’s not testable either.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues Biological systems exhibit signs of anticipatory, goal-directed behavior (teleonomy) that cannot be fully accounted for by random mutation and natural selection alone — and instead follow predictive patterns consistent with information-field dynamics, similar to self-organizing systems in physics.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues Ironically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a critique of blind faith — but you’re applying blind faith to the idea that blind mutation explains all order. That's just mechanomorphism: projecting dead machine logic onto living systems that clearly behave more like dynamic, adaptive, informed systems.
The real question is:
If nature looks purposeful, behaves adaptively, and self-organizes across time, why cling to a theory that insists it’s just a fluke?
I’m offering a scientific way to ask that question. That’s not pseudoscience — that’s honest inquiry.
The real question is:
If nature looks purposeful, behaves adaptively, and self-organizes across time, why cling to a theory that insists it’s just a fluke?
I’m offering a scientific way to ask that question. That’s not pseudoscience — that’s honest inquiry.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 sure . I’d like to ask many questions to challenge you he atheist point of view. If you’re willing to entertain.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Heavenlywarrior What's the 'atheist point of view' and what would it have to do with the evolution of prickles on roses?
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 i said point of view only because I disagree . Atheist world view regarding evolution, , is that it is unguided and purposeless.
Atheists claim mutations are random, yet plants develop prickles as a defense mechanism in order to less likely be eaten, or survive longer to spread their genes.
Atheists claim mutations are random, yet plants develop prickles as a defense mechanism in order to less likely be eaten, or survive longer to spread their genes.
basilfawlty89 · 36-40, M
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@basilfawlty89 hmmm..panpsychism eh… I like it. Definitely more aligned with my understanding, thanks for the share.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@JimboSaturn I agree with evolution to some degree. It’s just I see where consciousness plays the role in the reason behind the functions of our existence, it’s not random.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Heavenlywarrior Evolution is a process. Natural Selection is the mechanism driving the process.
In short, Natural Selection is sex and death within an environment that is constantly changing unpredictably.
None of that requires any sort of 'consciousness', we need not conjure up any sort of 'agency'.
If you have reproduction, you need death (c.f. Thomas Malthus).
If you have both, within a changing environment, you need nothing else.
In short, Natural Selection is sex and death within an environment that is constantly changing unpredictably.
None of that requires any sort of 'consciousness', we need not conjure up any sort of 'agency'.
If you have reproduction, you need death (c.f. Thomas Malthus).
If you have both, within a changing environment, you need nothing else.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
Let’s clarify and come to an agreement on this : Science is a method. Not a worldview.
It tells us how things behave — but it cannot tell us why anything exists at all, or whether the universe has meaning.
That’s not an insult to science. That’s honesty.
So when one says things like:
“Evolution doesn't favor anything,”
“There is no guidance,”
“Life is a meaningless byproduct of molecules colliding,”
One is not presenting science — one is presenting philosophical materialism in scientific drag.
It tells us how things behave — but it cannot tell us why anything exists at all, or whether the universe has meaning.
That’s not an insult to science. That’s honesty.
So when one says things like:
“Evolution doesn't favor anything,”
“There is no guidance,”
“Life is a meaningless byproduct of molecules colliding,”
One is not presenting science — one is presenting philosophical materialism in scientific drag.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues What explains the apparent directional bias toward survival-optimizing outcomes, in the absence of awareness, intention, or foresight? Why aren’t the outputs just neutral or chaotic?
You say:
"Without consciousness or intention, natural selection resulted in features that prolonged life."
But this is exactly the contradiction: You're saying a blind, unintelligent process consistently preserves intelligent-looking solutions — as if “what works” is somehow recognized and preserved over time. But how can “what works” be preserved unless there is some mechanism evaluating “what works”?
You say:
"Without consciousness or intention, natural selection resulted in features that prolonged life."
But this is exactly the contradiction: You're saying a blind, unintelligent process consistently preserves intelligent-looking solutions — as if “what works” is somehow recognized and preserved over time. But how can “what works” be preserved unless there is some mechanism evaluating “what works”?
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues Do the 32 harmful mutations show purpose?
No — but neither are they the point. The fact that they get filtered out speaks to a selective process that favors function over dysfunction.
Did something say “I want these 32 gene carriers to die”?
No — that’s anthropomorphic framing. The system behaves as if it selects — not because it "wants" but because certain outcomes survive and accumulate.
How can I impute purpose to the beneficial one?
Because teleonomy is about emergent function, not conscious intent. When a mutation systematically contributes to survival and persists, it reflects a deeper tendency toward adaptive order — not a one-time fluke.
Yes, mutations are like dice rolls. But:
If you roll a trillion dice and always end up with self-repairing, self-replicating machines that adapt and resist decay — the rational response isn’t “it’s just luck.” It’s to ask, “what property of the system gives rise to this reliable directional outcome?”
No — but neither are they the point. The fact that they get filtered out speaks to a selective process that favors function over dysfunction.
Did something say “I want these 32 gene carriers to die”?
No — that’s anthropomorphic framing. The system behaves as if it selects — not because it "wants" but because certain outcomes survive and accumulate.
How can I impute purpose to the beneficial one?
Because teleonomy is about emergent function, not conscious intent. When a mutation systematically contributes to survival and persists, it reflects a deeper tendency toward adaptive order — not a one-time fluke.
Yes, mutations are like dice rolls. But:
If you roll a trillion dice and always end up with self-repairing, self-replicating machines that adapt and resist decay — the rational response isn’t “it’s just luck.” It’s to ask, “what property of the system gives rise to this reliable directional outcome?”
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior says
@Heavenlywarrior says
And, 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct, so we don't actually end up with what you describe. It may look that way during a 5000 year snapshot, but over geologic time every individual is a mayfly, and every species is "a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more."
For example, here are some of the many extinct kinds of horses; similar sequences exist in the fossil record for many modern species and many long extinct species.
Many branches on the equine tree. Notice how the toes shrink among recent species but do not disappear.
Interesting report on extinct 3 toed horses from Tibetan Plateau
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-three-toed-horses-reveal-secret-tibetan.html
Did something say “I want these 32 gene carriers to die”?
The same environmental conditions and processes that killed the 32 gene carriers enabled the survival of the 33rd. They are all equal in that respect.@Heavenlywarrior says
intelligent-looking solutions
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is a perception in the mind, NOT an objective property of things in the world. Similarly, what you identify as "intelligent-looking" is your internal perception.If you roll a trillion dice and always end up with self-repairing, self-replicating machines that adapt and resist decay
That's not exactly what we end up with. Every creature dies, and few outlive 100 years. The species may seem to persist, but the species is slowly changing over time; it's not constant.And, 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct, so we don't actually end up with what you describe. It may look that way during a 5000 year snapshot, but over geologic time every individual is a mayfly, and every species is "a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more."
For example, here are some of the many extinct kinds of horses; similar sequences exist in the fossil record for many modern species and many long extinct species.
Many branches on the equine tree. Notice how the toes shrink among recent species but do not disappear.
Interesting report on extinct 3 toed horses from Tibetan Plateau
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-three-toed-horses-reveal-secret-tibetan.html
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
Thanks for everyone’s comments and engaging by the way.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow You’re reacting as if I’m presenting a religious dogma — but you’ve never once asked me what I believe. You’ve assumed Christianity, animism, Neoplatonism, and creationism, when in fact, I haven’t claimed any of them.
What I’ve said — consistently — is this:
There is evidence across biology, physics, and consciousness studies that life is not merely mechanical, but relational, adaptive, and self-organizing — suggesting an underlying field of information that behaves in a way we would describe as “intelligent.”
What I’ve said — consistently — is this:
There is evidence across biology, physics, and consciousness studies that life is not merely mechanical, but relational, adaptive, and self-organizing — suggesting an underlying field of information that behaves in a way we would describe as “intelligent.”
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow You’ve insisted evolution has “nothing philosophical about it,” which is demonstrably false. Any interpretation of what evolution means — including your claim that it is blind, unguided, or purposeless — is a metaphysical assertion.
That’s not data. That’s interpretation. Which means you're doing philosophy, even as you deny it.
That’s not data. That’s interpretation. Which means you're doing philosophy, even as you deny it.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@Heavenlywarrior You say it is demonstrably false and yet cannot provide any evidence to demonstrate your claim that it is false. 😂
You can pretend science is metaphor all you want. It doesn't make it true.
You can pretend science is metaphor all you want. It doesn't make it true.
BohemianBabe · M
Natural selection. The short version is that occasionally a species will have a mutation that improves its chances of survival and replication. The members of that species that didn't have that mutation will die off, while the others go on to reproduce until the mutation is now just a part of that species.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@Heavenlywarrior Thorns are built-in genetic adaptation that evolved over many generations because plants with thorns were more likely to survive and reproduce.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@SatanBurger copied from my other reply:
If mutations were just random noise, we’d expect chaos—not the consistent emergence of functional, optimized systems like vision or flight. Saying “it worked in hindsight” assumes a pattern existed to begin with. But why does randomness so reliably produce coherence, not collapse? Natural selection filters results, but it doesn’t explain why so much biological “noise” keeps generating structure. This suggests deeper organizing principles at play—more than just chance, and more than hindsight can explain. more like insight.
If mutations were just random noise, we’d expect chaos—not the consistent emergence of functional, optimized systems like vision or flight. Saying “it worked in hindsight” assumes a pattern existed to begin with. But why does randomness so reliably produce coherence, not collapse? Natural selection filters results, but it doesn’t explain why so much biological “noise” keeps generating structure. This suggests deeper organizing principles at play—more than just chance, and more than hindsight can explain. more like insight.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@Heavenlywarrior Mutations are random with respect to fitness, that is, they don’t “aim” toward creating complex systems like wings or eyes. But natural selection isn’t random. It's the opposite: a consistent, directional filter that preserves anything that gives even a slight advantage in a given environment.
So over long timescales, this interplay random variation and non-random filtering can lead to the emergence of highly structured systems. It's not that randomness creates order by itself, but that it feeds possibilities into a filtering system that amplifies the useful and discards the rest. It’s a bit like shaking up letters randomly but keeping any sequences that spell actual words. Eventually, whole paragraphs emerge.
And crucially, those outcomes seem like they were inevitable or insightful in hindsight—but they weren’t planned. They’re just the result of billions of tiny trials, most of which failed, but some of which stuck because they worked.
As for deeper organizing principles—some scientists do think there are additional constraints at play. Things like developmental pathways, physical laws, and ecological interactions all shape which mutations are likely to be viable in the first place. That’s not quite “insight,” but it does mean evolution isn’t working from pure chaos, it’s working from a shaped possibility space.
Biology finds so many ways to sculpt randomness into function.
So over long timescales, this interplay random variation and non-random filtering can lead to the emergence of highly structured systems. It's not that randomness creates order by itself, but that it feeds possibilities into a filtering system that amplifies the useful and discards the rest. It’s a bit like shaking up letters randomly but keeping any sequences that spell actual words. Eventually, whole paragraphs emerge.
And crucially, those outcomes seem like they were inevitable or insightful in hindsight—but they weren’t planned. They’re just the result of billions of tiny trials, most of which failed, but some of which stuck because they worked.
As for deeper organizing principles—some scientists do think there are additional constraints at play. Things like developmental pathways, physical laws, and ecological interactions all shape which mutations are likely to be viable in the first place. That’s not quite “insight,” but it does mean evolution isn’t working from pure chaos, it’s working from a shaped possibility space.
Biology finds so many ways to sculpt randomness into function.
Frostcloud · F
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@Convivial You’re essentially saying: “Unthinking chaos just keeps stumbling into better and better order.” But in every other context—coding, architecture, art—we call that design or intelligence.
Convivial · 26-30, F
@Heavenlywarrior call it what you will, but many "mistakes" turn out to be beneficial... No architect involved
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@Convivial What is the origin of the gene itself?
Genes don’t just “exist.” They are complex, information-rich sequences that store, transmit, and act upon symbolic instructions (e.g., codons to amino acids).
Question: What blind process writes language-like instruction systems that self-replicate, repair, error-correct, and evolve in response to environmental feedback?
Genes don’t just “exist.” They are complex, information-rich sequences that store, transmit, and act upon symbolic instructions (e.g., codons to amino acids).
Question: What blind process writes language-like instruction systems that self-replicate, repair, error-correct, and evolve in response to environmental feedback?
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@Greyjedi You're pointing to the outcome — "thorns evolved to prevent predation" — but skipping over the mechanisms that make that adaptation possible at all. So let’s ask the real questions:
Why do genes self-regulate with such fidelity?
If evolution is just accumulated accidents, why are genetic networks able to distinguish between harmful and beneficial mutations, filter noise, and maintain stable expression profiles across generations?
Why do genes self-regulate with such fidelity?
If evolution is just accumulated accidents, why are genetic networks able to distinguish between harmful and beneficial mutations, filter noise, and maintain stable expression profiles across generations?
Greyjedi · M
@Heavenlywarrior Genes can be part of thinking organisms but genes are not sentient and thus do not have fidelity. If “genetic networks” as you call them, were able to distinguish between harmful and beneficial mutations as you say, crime would not exist. Harmful and beneficial are largely a matter of opinion, from outsiders. Have you ever played a board game? Life for many organisms is purely chance on this planet and life can be confirmed to have existed for at least 3.5 billion years. For perspective that is 87.5 million times your longer than you have possibly lived. When life has had that long to evolve some things are going to look greater than chance. Factors in soil nutrients, fona, pollinators, sunlight, and space lead to the development roses. A better question is when did Roses evolve. I don’t no that, but I know some one who has more than a basic understanding biology and earth science and I will ask. Another good question to ask is why is there more than one kind of rose?
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@Greyjedi You're correct that genes aren't sentient — what I find even more fascinating is the cell. Genes are inert strands of code until a cell reads, regulates, and interprets them. A gene is executed within a system that actively maintains order, resists entropy, and repairs itself — which is the hallmark of goal-directed behavior.
Why do they silence harmful mutations and amplify beneficial ones?
Why do they maintain homeostasis — regulating ion gradients, temperature, waste, pH, and nutrient levels — with real-time precision, across billions of cells?
There is no “conscious architect,” according to an Atheists’ world view . But this isn’t chaos either. This is functional order. That’s not superstition — that’s empirical, testable biology.
You said:
“Genes are not sentient and thus do not have fidelity.”
But fidelity doesn’t require consciousness — it requires feedback systems. DNA polymerase corrects errors. Chaperone proteins ensure correct folding. Transcription factors respond to the cellular environment. Cells exhibit non-random preference for order over disorder — they detect damage and act to repair it.
If it’s all chance, why do cells fight randomness at every level of function?
You said:
“Factors like soil, nutrients, pollinators, and sunlight led to roses evolving.”
Yes — but only because the rose’s internal systems are equipped to adapt.
If genes were static or totally random, no adaptation to environmental factors would be possible. The rose developed thorns not because the environment dictated it, but because the rose’s cells responded to environmental stress and pressure — and encoded that response into reproductive success.
That encoding process requires biological logic and stable inheritance mechanisms, not blind chance.
Life doesn’t just appear to defy randomness — it functions as if it were organized. Homeostasis, regulatory networks, and error correction aren’t illusions of order. They are active, measurable, functional order.
If there's no deeper order, why do self-organizing systems in physics (crystals, magnetism, fractals) obey precise laws of emergence?
Why do they silence harmful mutations and amplify beneficial ones?
Why do they maintain homeostasis — regulating ion gradients, temperature, waste, pH, and nutrient levels — with real-time precision, across billions of cells?
There is no “conscious architect,” according to an Atheists’ world view . But this isn’t chaos either. This is functional order. That’s not superstition — that’s empirical, testable biology.
You said:
“Genes are not sentient and thus do not have fidelity.”
But fidelity doesn’t require consciousness — it requires feedback systems. DNA polymerase corrects errors. Chaperone proteins ensure correct folding. Transcription factors respond to the cellular environment. Cells exhibit non-random preference for order over disorder — they detect damage and act to repair it.
If it’s all chance, why do cells fight randomness at every level of function?
You said:
“Factors like soil, nutrients, pollinators, and sunlight led to roses evolving.”
Yes — but only because the rose’s internal systems are equipped to adapt.
If genes were static or totally random, no adaptation to environmental factors would be possible. The rose developed thorns not because the environment dictated it, but because the rose’s cells responded to environmental stress and pressure — and encoded that response into reproductive success.
That encoding process requires biological logic and stable inheritance mechanisms, not blind chance.
Life doesn’t just appear to defy randomness — it functions as if it were organized. Homeostasis, regulatory networks, and error correction aren’t illusions of order. They are active, measurable, functional order.
If there's no deeper order, why do self-organizing systems in physics (crystals, magnetism, fractals) obey precise laws of emergence?
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
BohemianBabe · M
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@whowasthatmaskedman profound.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@Heavenlywarrior Yes. You can sound really clever and deep just by moving a few words around sometimes..😷
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
“If natural selection is reactive and blind, how do we explain anticipatory adaptations — such as toxins, thorns, camouflage — evolving with such precision before extinction wipes out the vulnerable lineage?”
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@Heavenlywarrior They are not anticipatory. The do not evolve with precision, most species that ever lived are extinct. Your argument is called irreducible complexitity. Like how can a bird have half a wing? Well evolution works in small increments.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@JimboSaturn You said traits evolve ‘in small increments.’ But why would an organism persist in developing half a function — like a partial wing or partial eye — if that trait has no advantage yet?
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@Heavenlywarrior Google Richard Dawkins explain evolution of the eye. Small increments can be advantageous like photoreptors located in one spot first, then the structure slightly concave would focus the image and give an advantage, each small step an improvement over the other until an eye as we know it is evolved. Many other examples are available, fins that can act as flippers and moved a fish on land briefly from one shrinking pool to a larger water mass, slight wings like flying squirrels could allow an animal to glide from one tree to the next. The argument you are using is irreducible complexity.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
basilfawlty89 · 36-40, M
MasterLee · 56-60, M
What does this have to do with Atheists?
Tumbleweed · F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment