Question for Atheists ( hoping for a interesting debate)
Why do Roses đš have thorns?
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies Âť
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.
Thatâs astonishing, so Iâll repeat it: most of them are on [/\b]exactly the same place[/b] on both genomes.
Letâs 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 âsilencedâ 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 ânearly all mammalsâ 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. Thatâs 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 creationistsâ laughable claims of an âintelligent designerâ, 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 âintelligent designerâ 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.
Thatâs astonishing, so Iâll repeat it: most of them are on [/\b]exactly the same place[/b] on both genomes.
Letâs 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 âsilencedâ 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 ânearly all mammalsâ 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. Thatâs 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 creationistsâ laughable claims of an âintelligent designerâ, 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 âintelligent designerâ 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.
newjaninev2 ¡ 56-60, F
@ElwoodBlues Oh gosh... that's rather flattering - thank you đĽ°
Heavenlywarrior ¡ 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues @newjaninev2 thanks for this very detailed and entertaining response. I had to take my time.
What seems evident in all existence is âpatternâ
If evolution is undirected and purely reactive, how do we explain teleonomy â the appearance of purpose â arising consistently? Why do organisms develop traits that seem to anticipate challenges theyâve never faced? What mechanism bridges reaction and foresight?
What seems evident in all existence is âpatternâ
If evolution is undirected and purely reactive, how do we explain teleonomy â the appearance of purpose â arising consistently? Why do organisms develop traits that seem to anticipate challenges theyâve never faced? What mechanism bridges reaction and foresight?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Heavenlywarrior ¡ 36-40, M
@basilfawlty89 you definitely are not wrong đ¤Ł
ElwoodBlues ¡ M
@Heavenlywarrior asks
A quick look tells me that 1% to 3% of mutations might be beneficial; the vast majority of the rest are harmful. So let's simplify it to 1 helpful mutation and 32 harmful ones.
Do the 32 harmful mutations show purpose? Did something say "I want these 32 gene carriers to die"? How can you impute "purpose" to the one beneficial mutation but not to the 32 harmful ones? They are all mutations. They are all nature rolling the dice.
The effects of the beneficial mutation might not show up for decades -- until the crown of a tree is competing with other crowns. All mutations are shots in the dark. Natural selection may take time.
In short, the idea of "purpose" of a beneficial mutation is one that viewers impose from the outside while ignoring the 32 harmful mutations. It's like saying "water seeks its own level." No water molecule has intent, it's the law of gravity (and capillary action) at work. Imputing purpose to water or random mutations is just a careless way of speaking.
Now let's get specific with some of Janines' examples. As noted above, Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-?-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C. The only mammals that can't make their own vitamin C are the primates.
What is the purpose in denying primates the power to make Vitamin C? Do you have a convincing explanation, or is it just a random mutation that happened to be carried along with a beneficial mutation? If you can't identify a purpose, then doesn't your teleonomic theory collapse?
Likewise all the included retroviral DNA found in primates. Does it have a purpose? Or is your teleonomic theory falling short again??
Likewise abdominal pregnancies. Do they have a purpose? Or is your teleonomic theory falling short again??
how do we explain teleonomy â the appearance of purpose â arising consistently?
A quick look tells me that 1% to 3% of mutations might be beneficial; the vast majority of the rest are harmful. So let's simplify it to 1 helpful mutation and 32 harmful ones.
Do the 32 harmful mutations show purpose? Did something say "I want these 32 gene carriers to die"? How can you impute "purpose" to the one beneficial mutation but not to the 32 harmful ones? They are all mutations. They are all nature rolling the dice.
The effects of the beneficial mutation might not show up for decades -- until the crown of a tree is competing with other crowns. All mutations are shots in the dark. Natural selection may take time.
In short, the idea of "purpose" of a beneficial mutation is one that viewers impose from the outside while ignoring the 32 harmful mutations. It's like saying "water seeks its own level." No water molecule has intent, it's the law of gravity (and capillary action) at work. Imputing purpose to water or random mutations is just a careless way of speaking.
Now let's get specific with some of Janines' examples. As noted above, Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-?-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C. The only mammals that can't make their own vitamin C are the primates.
What is the purpose in denying primates the power to make Vitamin C? Do you have a convincing explanation, or is it just a random mutation that happened to be carried along with a beneficial mutation? If you can't identify a purpose, then doesn't your teleonomic theory collapse?
Likewise all the included retroviral DNA found in primates. Does it have a purpose? Or is your teleonomic theory falling short again??
Likewise abdominal pregnancies. Do they have a purpose? Or is your teleonomic theory falling short again??
newjaninev2 ¡ 56-60, F
@ElwoodBlues teleonomy is often confounded with teleology, and that seems to be the case here.
Heavenlywarrior ¡ 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues Yes, mutations are random. But natural selection isnât.â¨It's a non-random, directional process that filters random inputs based on survival and reproductive outcomes.
That filtering consistently preserves structures that function toward goals â movement, perception, defense, reproduction, etc.â¨That is exactly what teleonomy refers to: purpose-like behavior emerging from a feedback-driven process.
You said:
âHow can I impute purpose to the 1 helpful mutation and not to the 32 harmful ones?â
Simple: because only the beneficial mutation persists.
Youâre focused on the coin flips. Iâm focused on the rules of the casino.â¨Only the âwinningâ mutations build the next generation. That selective pressure is what gives the system direction â and therefore, the appearance of intent.
So even if 32 harmful mutations happen, they donât shape the future.â¨They die off. Thatâs the filter. Thatâs where direction comes from.
Imagine 100 drafts of a design â 99 get thrown away.
Was the process random? Yes.
But the final product still looks engineered because the selection wasnât random.
when evolutionary systems repeatedly produce structures that adapt, preserve, optimize, and replicate, itâs not imposingpurpose â itâs recognizing patterned direction. That's teleonomy, not anthropomorphism.
Regarding the water , you used a metaphor that proves my point. Yes, water âseeks its own levelâ because it's operating under consistent laws, like gravity. We donât say the water has intent, but we do recognize that it behaves in a reliably goal-directed manner based on its embedded relationship to the environment.
That filtering consistently preserves structures that function toward goals â movement, perception, defense, reproduction, etc.â¨That is exactly what teleonomy refers to: purpose-like behavior emerging from a feedback-driven process.
You said:
âHow can I impute purpose to the 1 helpful mutation and not to the 32 harmful ones?â
Simple: because only the beneficial mutation persists.
Youâre focused on the coin flips. Iâm focused on the rules of the casino.â¨Only the âwinningâ mutations build the next generation. That selective pressure is what gives the system direction â and therefore, the appearance of intent.
So even if 32 harmful mutations happen, they donât shape the future.â¨They die off. Thatâs the filter. Thatâs where direction comes from.
Imagine 100 drafts of a design â 99 get thrown away.
Was the process random? Yes.
But the final product still looks engineered because the selection wasnât random.
when evolutionary systems repeatedly produce structures that adapt, preserve, optimize, and replicate, itâs not imposingpurpose â itâs recognizing patterned direction. That's teleonomy, not anthropomorphism.
Regarding the water , you used a metaphor that proves my point. Yes, water âseeks its own levelâ because it's operating under consistent laws, like gravity. We donât say the water has intent, but we do recognize that it behaves in a reliably goal-directed manner based on its embedded relationship to the environment.
Heavenlywarrior ¡ 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 m not confusing teleonomy with teleology â Iâm interrogating whether the line between them is as clean as it's made to seem. If natural processes consistently produce structures that optimize, adapt, and function in ways that appear goal-directed, then the burden is on us to ask: Is this just 'apparent' purpose â or is it evidence of a deeper organizing principle?
Calling it âteleonomyâ doesn't eliminate the mystery â it just renames it. What ensures that mutations donât just generate noise, but pathways that actually work? Thatâs not a confusion of terms â itâs the real question.
Calling it âteleonomyâ doesn't eliminate the mystery â it just renames it. What ensures that mutations donât just generate noise, but pathways that actually work? Thatâs not a confusion of terms â itâs the real question.
newjaninev2 ¡ 56-60, F
Heavenlywarrior ¡ 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 If we say itâs only hindsight that makes biological structures appear purposeful, we must explain why hindsight keeps revealing systems that work, not chaos. The point isnât whether we notice purpose after the fact â the question is: why is there a "fact" to notice at all? Why do organisms show repeated emergence of structure, coordination, and survival?
If mutations are just noise, why does that noise produce coherent outcomes more often than not â layered, functional, and even beautiful? Hindsight can describe a pattern, but it canât explain why the pattern keeps recurring in the first place.
So the deeper issue remains: How does a non-sentient process consistently generate structures that simulate goal-oriented behavior, stability, and repair â rather than disintegration and randomness? If thatâs just luck, then luck behaves with astonishing regularity.
Calling that âhindsightâ doesnât eliminate the problem â it just renames it, which is exactly what I said about teleonomy.
If mutations are just noise, why does that noise produce coherent outcomes more often than not â layered, functional, and even beautiful? Hindsight can describe a pattern, but it canât explain why the pattern keeps recurring in the first place.
So the deeper issue remains: How does a non-sentient process consistently generate structures that simulate goal-oriented behavior, stability, and repair â rather than disintegration and randomness? If thatâs just luck, then luck behaves with astonishing regularity.
Calling that âhindsightâ doesnât eliminate the problem â it just renames it, which is exactly what I said about teleonomy.
newjaninev2 ¡ 56-60, F
@Heavenlywarrior
Again, only in hindsight. If they were unsuccessful we wouldn't see them... we'd see something different instead - or nothing at all
Only in hindsight, and I have already mentioned sex and death in a constantly changing environment.
systems that work
Again, only in hindsight. If they were unsuccessful we wouldn't see them... we'd see something different instead - or nothing at all
why does that noise produce coherent outcomes
Only in hindsight, and I have already mentioned sex and death in a constantly changing environment.
Heavenlywarrior ¡ 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 If mutations were just random noise, weâd expect chaosânot the consistent emergence of functional, optimized systems like vision or flight. Saying âit worked in hindsightâ assumes a pattern existed to begin with. But why does randomness so reliably produce coherence, not collapse? Natural selection filters results, but it doesnât explain why so much biological ânoiseâ keeps generating structure. This suggests deeper organizing principles at playâmore than just chance, and more than hindsight can explain. more like insight.
newjaninev2 ¡ 56-60, F
@Heavenlywarrior
Natural Selection drives the evolutionary process, which has no results.
Arbitrary snapshots are not results, because there's no end to the game - and the playing field keeps changing.
Natural selection filters results
Natural Selection drives the evolutionary process, which has no results.
Arbitrary snapshots are not results, because there's no end to the game - and the playing field keeps changing.
Heavenlywarrior ¡ 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 youâve got to admit, thereâs a pattern.
If there are no results, how do you explain the consistent emergence of functionally optimized systems across species?
Wings fly. Eyes see. Camouflage conceals. Teeth cut. These are not arbitraryâthey are reliable, repeatable, and functionally aligned with survival. Thatâs not just a snapshot. Thatâs a pattern.
If random happenings emerged in the process of Nature, at some point it was followed by order.
This consistent pattern seems to continually demonstrate itself evidently.
If there are no results, how do you explain the consistent emergence of functionally optimized systems across species?
Wings fly. Eyes see. Camouflage conceals. Teeth cut. These are not arbitraryâthey are reliable, repeatable, and functionally aligned with survival. Thatâs not just a snapshot. Thatâs a pattern.
If random happenings emerged in the process of Nature, at some point it was followed by order.
This consistent pattern seems to continually demonstrate itself evidently.
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 âgoalâ is replication, then youâve already acknowledged goal-oriented behavior â you're just restricting it to a minimalist frame and denying its implications. But replication is not passive: itâs a functional process requiring fidelity, error correction, regulation, and timing â 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 â 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 â from quorum sensing in bacteria to error-checking in DNA polymerases?
And most importantly:
If genes only âmatch backwards into the future,â why does forward-functioning information persist and outperform neutral drift?
You're not escaping teleonomy â youâre just calling it âbare survivalâ and pretending that function doesnât imply a system acting in some relation to outcome. But outcome requires direction.
Youâre mistaking vulnerability for lack of precision. The fact that life persists in a narrow band of conditions doesnât argue against precision â 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 wouldnât last a second in this so-called "hostile universe."
Even our flaws â like immune overreactions or genetic bottlenecks â occur within frameworks that still maintain adaptive function across generations. Precision doesn't mean perfection; it means systematic, regulated behavior toward survival thresholds.
If thereâs 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 â 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 â from quorum sensing in bacteria to error-checking in DNA polymerases?
And most importantly:
If genes only âmatch backwards into the future,â why does forward-functioning information persist and outperform neutral drift?
You're not escaping teleonomy â youâre just calling it âbare survivalâ and pretending that function doesnât imply a system acting in some relation to outcome. But outcome requires direction.
Youâre mistaking vulnerability for lack of precision. The fact that life persists in a narrow band of conditions doesnât argue against precision â 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 wouldnât last a second in this so-called "hostile universe."
Even our flaws â like immune overreactions or genetic bottlenecks â occur within frameworks that still maintain adaptive function across generations. Precision doesn't mean perfection; it means systematic, regulated behavior toward survival thresholds.
If thereâs no precision, how do organisms maintain homeostasis within such tight biochemical limits (e.g., pH, temperature, oxygen saturation)?