Does evolution mean improvement, and does it have a direction?

[Catharsis]

It might be of interest to read: (under Blog2 > Spirit) http://web.me.com/finland1/Reindeer_Instructor/Welcome.html

 

Also blog: (Aug 31st, Sep 5th) http://www.myspace.com/reindeer_instructor

 

The myspace blogs are about some books that have way more interesting titles then the reading was... Which brings up an interesting point - so much in life has “interesting titles” then the actual material that’s covered under them. I wonder if this can tell us anything?

 

***********************

 

Also I would like to add what I believe is very interesting (and in my opinion).

 

They (in science) are talking about how we maybe did not evolve From Apes but rather shared a common ancestor.

 

It took me some time to think about this; because the alteration in the DNA that will eventually LEAD to humans down the road took place in one of the offspring and not the other does not mean they looked any different when, at the time, they where born. Meaning the two (let’s say hypothetically speaking) siblings where in every biological sense of the word “the same” but the change in DNA for one of them took place that would eventually lead to humans. Are you with me? This needs to be emphasized! Changes that occur in DNA that lead to the definition of “evolution” might not immediately show themselves, actually might just be the first step in a long line of changes before “surfacing”...

 

I think with this in mind we can see the real big picture when we talk about evolution and Billions of years.

 

***********************

 

Also what’s the deal when they talk about evolving from the dinosaurs - like chickens are distant relatives etc. When we as life as we know it actually evolved from what was fortunate to have remained after the meteor hit (such as moles, and life that could “burrow”). So we as life as we know it - actually evolved from rodents (metaphorically speaking) no?

 

This seems to not be emphasized all that much (at least from what appears to me). Because if this is the case then the actual origins of life on the planet actually comes from a very small (and strangely inferior) group, no?

 

Comments, suggestion and opinions are greatly appreciated,

 

Thank you in advance...

Peace be with you .

Edited September 26, 2009 by Catharsis

[PhDP]

i'm also yet to discover why're you all fighting tooth and nail to keep it purposeless, aimless.. what does it bring down in evolution? what part does it screw up?

 

We can build predictive models assuming evolution is driven by drift, mutations, draft, selection, (...). We can generate predictions about patterns of molecular evolution, predict species divergence time, understand patterns of life-histories, et cetera. Not only none of these predictive model assume a "purpose", but these models increasingly rely on stochastic forces (i.e.: "randomness"). Many people are quick to forget that science is not about describing the universe, it's about seeing patterns, building models, and generating predictions that you can tests with real data. Evolutionary theory does that very well, in fact surprisingly well given the complexity of our object of study. And we achieve this without the concepts of "aim" or "purposes", au contraire. Does it constitute a formal proof against the idea or purpose in life ? No. But so far, as the proponents of teleological evolution have offered no positive evidence for their theory, I really see no place for "purpose" in evolution.

 

You might believe blind evolution "makes no sense", but science has very often lead to counter-intuitive theories. We do not select theories to fit people's prejudices, and if you're really interested in evolution, I suggest that you take a good book about it. I don't want to be rude, but I doubt you've done that. Much of the "creation-evolution" controversy is supported by people unwilling to take the time to read about evolution, but very quick to bash anything that goes against their religious beliefs (to be fair, however, I do think evolutionary theory IS a threat to christianism).

[CharonY]

(to be fair, however, I do think evolutionary theory IS a threat to christianism).

 

Well, kind of. The catholic church has officially issued no conflict of evolutionary theory with christian belief insofar as the accept the age of the earth as well as the existence of evolution. Interesting it also kind of rejects intelligent design up to a certain point. They still want to hog emergence of life, though. It is kind of ironic that in Europe generally the catholic church is the more conservative body (as compared to the protestants), whereas in the US the the roles appear to be reversed.