What's the point of speaking of evolution as having purpose?

There is enough evidence to prove that I am a direct descendant of a single celled organism?? What is this evidence? You didn't answer my question about how life started.

JJ, You're a christian, right?

JJ, Read "The Origin of Species."

John Jones wrote:

You cannot define an environment without saying what creature you are referring to.

The term "environment" can be used as a general description of surroundings and conditions, where the thing the environment surrounds is an arbitrary focal point.

en·vi·ron·ment P Pronunciation Key (n-vrn-mnt, -vrn-) - n.
1. The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings.

For example, the Ocean is an environment, and the desert is an environment. The surfact of Mars is also an environment, and so is Outer Space, even though nothing lives there (that we know of).

But the *point* of all this was that the environment we live in today is not *perfect* for us just by chance. It's perfect for us because we evolved to fill it.

John Creasy wrote:

There is enough evidence to prove that I am a direct descendant of a single celled organism?? What is this evidence? You didn't answer my question about how life started.

Are you a student/graduate/academic in the field of life sciences? If not, might I recommend that, if you are really interested in the topic, you devote five or six years of your life to studying it? Then you will be able to assess the evidence with some authority for yourself.

Apparently, amongst those who have devoted their time to the study of biology, 98% are of the opinion that evolution is proven.

I like to think of it as an educated-guessing game...

In any case, my point was that a2k philosophy forum is probably not the best place to discuss the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution. You would be far better off studying under experts, and challenging them directly where you think they are mistaken, rather than discussing it with laymen like myself, where most of us are armed only with second-hand information, and have insufficient time to devote to research.

It may be the case that many scientists have doubts about evolution, but many more are certain is it correct, and the only way you or I are going to have anything useful to contribute to the debate is if we spend at least as much time as these scientists studying the matter.

I have chosen not to do this, and so have settled for believing what the majority of experts on the subject say. If I wish to challenge them, I'll try to make sure I know at least as much as them before I do.

djbt wrote:

John Creasy wrote:

There is enough evidence to prove that I am a direct descendant of a single celled organism?? What is this evidence? You didn't answer my question about how life started.

Are you a student/graduate/academic in the field of life sciences? If not, might I recommend that, if you are really interested in the topic, you devote five or six years of your life to studying it? Then you will be able to assess the evidence with some authority for yourself.

Apparently, amongst those who have devoted their time to the study of biology, 98% are of the opinion that evolution is proven.

That's not true genius. Many scientists have doubts about darwin's theory. Besides there's only so much science can prove, and after that it all becomes a guessing game.

If, in describing an environment, I state things like: % nitrogen/oxygen/CO2 in the air, temperature, length of days, average rainfall, etc., then why do I need to mention a particular creature?

I like to think of it as an educated-guessing game...

In any case, my point was that a2k philosophy forum is probably not the best place to discuss the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution. You would be far better off studying under experts, and challenging them directly where you think they are mistaken, rather than discussing it with laymen like myself, where most of us are armed only with second-hand information, and have insufficient time to devote to research.

It may be the case that many scientists have doubts about evolution, but many more are certain is it correct, and the only way you or I are going to have anything useful to contribute to the debate is if we spend at least as much time as these scientists studying the matter.

I have chosen not to do this, and so have settled for believing what the majority of experts on the subject say. If I wish to challenge them, I'll try to make sure I know at least as much as them before I do.

djbt wrote:

If, in describing an environment, I state things like: % nitrogen/oxygen/CO2 in the air, temperature, length of days, average rainfall, etc., then why do I need to mention a particular creature?

Because some creatures do not use that 'environment'. It's only an environment if a creature uses it. In other words, if you know the creature, you know the environment.

djbt wrote:

I like to think of it as an educated-guessing game...

In any case, my point was that a2k philosophy forum is probably not the best place to discuss the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution. You would be far better off studying under experts, and challenging them directly where you think they are mistaken, rather than discussing it with laymen like myself, where most of us are armed only with second-hand information, and have insufficient time to devote to research.

It may be the case that many scientists have doubts about evolution, but many more are certain is it correct, and the only way you or I are going to have anything useful to contribute to the debate is if we spend at least as much time as these scientists studying the matter.

I have chosen not to do this, and so have settled for believing what the majority of experts on the subject say. If I wish to challenge them, I'll try to make sure I know at least as much as them before I do.

Rubbish. You don't need to know technical details to see if the house is built on sand. Just ask me if you have any problems with evolution. I have shat on them before, and will continue to do so from a great height with much noise. I am truly invincible.

John Jones wrote:

djbt wrote:

If, in describing an environment, I state things like: % nitrogen/oxygen/CO2 in the air, temperature, length of days, average rainfall, etc., then why do I need to mention a particular creature?

Because some creatures do not use that 'environment'. It's only an environment if a creature uses it. In other words, if you know the creature, you know the environment.

If you wish to use the word to mean that, fine. It's not the only way in which the word environment can be used. I could describe an environment in the terms above even if no creature ever 'used' it. We talk of Venus having an environment, for example. We talk about the environment on earth before the emergence of life. You're playing an irrelevant word game.

Even if a mis-use of language in the sciences is infrequent, we can be led seriously astray if we drop our guard.

What's wrong with an environment being 100 feet down inside a granite block?

Your argument seems to be entirely circular. You say you cannot describe an environment without reference to a creature, then when an example is given of an environment which cannot be described with reference to creature because it does not contain any creatures, you seem to say that that isn't an environment, because it doesn't contain any creatures. That's not thinking it through, it's thinking round in circles.

John Jones wrote:

Even if a mis-use of language in the sciences is infrequent, we can be led seriously astray if we drop our guard.

Well, yes, I'm sure we all agree with that. But we're not arguing the general point, you're saying that the word environment is being mis-used, a point which you're yet to make a case for.

Astrophysics, abstract
astro-ph/9910429
From: Priscilla Chapman Frisch [view email]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:44:46 GMT (44kb)

The galactic environment of the Sun
Authors: P. C. Frisch
Comments: 30 pages, 2 figures, JGR-Space Physics, in press

The interstellar cloud surrounding the solar system regulates the galactic environment of the Sun and constrains the physical characteristics of the interplanetary medium. This paper compares interstellar dust grain properties observed within the solar system with dust properties inferred from observations of the cloud surrounding the solar system. Properties of diffuse clouds in the solar vicinity are discussed to gain insight into the properties of the diffuse cloud complex flowing past the Sun. Evidence is presented for changes in the galactic environment of the Sun within the next 10$^4$--10$^6$ years. The combined history of changes in the interstellar environment of the Sun, and solar activity cycles, will be recorded in the variability of the ratio of large- to medium-sized interstellar dust grains deposited onto geologically inert surfaces. Combining data from lunar core samples in the inner and outer solar system will assist in disentangling these two effects.