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.
@Pherick @Pherick If evolution isn't intelligent, why do we talk about traits “helping” survival or “developing” over time? Isn’t that teleological language?
A trait is just as likely to be negative as it is positive. What if the little nubs a rose grew were filled with delicious nectar and brought in more and varied herbivores to eat it? That certainly would have less of them left to make babies, which means the nub growing roses would die out and we would be back to "normal" roses.
You are anthropomorphizing a process which has no feelings. Evolution doesn't care if you survive or not, it just drives forward. Mutation after mutation until something starts to work! Or doesn't!
@Pherick You say the rose with nubs “survived longer” and “made more babies.” But isn’t that assuming that survival advantage causes the thorn, and the thorn causes the survival? Isn't that circular?
@Heavenlywarrior YES! Thats exactly how evolution works. Its a feedback loop!
This has more than the loop on it, but the idea is there.
Things happen, nubs, horns, hooves, eyes, etc. Then nature makes the selection, they live, they die, they breed or they don't. Traits are passed on and then nature starts the testing again ... Its a LONG arduous process.
Doesn’t the very fact that nature selects from mutations as if it has a purpose suggest the presence of an ordering mind — or at least something teleological behind the process?
@Heavenlywarrior There is no selection. Selection in this case merely is used to mean nature "selects" the winner because they survived. They had thorns, they had faster hooves, they had better eyesight, so nature "selected" them to survive.
@Heavenlywarrior Well they have intention in that they do certain things, but they have no wants or desires outside of their function. Genes have no role outside of their environment. Genetic material means nothing if its not used in the proper way. Genes are just bits of DNA.
@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?
@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.
@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?
