Evolution Theory

As I said, AIDS has no purpose in any of the colloquial meanings of the term, which are all that dictionary listed. But purpose can be used to mean simply the guided or unguided result of an action. It isn't a common usage, but it's correct.

As I said, AIDS has no purpose in any of the colloquial meanings of the term, which are all that dictionary listed. But purpose can be used to mean simply the guided or unguided result of an action. It isn't a common usage, but it's correct.

WRONG.

As I said, AIDS has no purpose in any of the colloquial meanings of the term, which are all that dictionary listed. But purpose can be used to mean simply the guided or unguided result of an action. It isn't a common usage, but it's correct.

I thought it was pretty clear that when he used the word "purpose" he meant "reason for existing", as he used that several times in his posts. So unless you think he is using alternate definitions for the words "reason" and "existing", I'd say it is pretty clear that this argument is over.

Quote from: dysfunction on April 04, 2007, 08:18:33 AM

As I said, AIDS has no purpose in any of the colloquial meanings of the term, which are all that dictionary listed. But purpose can be used to mean simply the guided or unguided result of an action. It isn't a common usage, but it's correct.

I thought it was pretty clear that when he used the word "purpose" he meant "reason for existing", as he used that several times in his posts. So unless you think he is using alternate definitions for the words "reason" and "existing", I'd say it is pretty clear that this argument is over.

Bah fuck this. You must be blind to what Beast is really saying, and what I've been saying.

Bah fuck this. You must be blind to what Beast is really saying, and what I've been saying.

I thought Beast was saying that AIDS does not have a purpose. If that is not what he is saying, then yes, I am blind as hell.

As I said, AIDS has no purpose in any of the colloquial meanings of the term, which are all that dictionary listed. But purpose can be used to mean simply the guided or unguided result of an action. It isn't a common usage, but it's correct.

Can you please elaborate by what you mean.  "Purpose can be used to mean... the... unguided result of an action," "It isn't a common usage, but it's correct."  Can you show me a dictionary definition that offers that as a possible definition?  If you can't, how do you know that it's a correct definition of "purpose?"  If that definition is not used in dictionaries, isn't more likely that it's not a correct usage, and that you're wrong, rather than the dictionaries missing it out?  Can you provide an example of a correct usage of that definition of "purpose" in another sentence.  One I'm just making up is; "the purpose of clouds is to rain."  In this case, we know that that's not the actual purpose of clouds.  Can you provide an example where the statement is actually correct?

I don't know how you can attribute a purpose to AIDS.  To say that evolution is the purpose of AIDS, which is the only thing that can fit the definition of purpose that Midnight gave is ludicrous.  AIDS exists because it is the unguided consequence of random genetic variance in previous virus', that exist because of random molecular changes in chemical reactions, which exist because of random fluctuations in the cooling of suns, which exist because of the big bang.  We could equally say that the purpose of AIDS is the Big Bang.  Does that make sense to you?  Of course it doesn't, because it's not what we mean by "purpose."  AIDS has no purpose.

I believe you are the parrot dealing with "aids and evolution".

I think the problem lies in that the definition of 'evolution' is being used to fit whatever idealism is being suggested. Some take it as "life evolves as a purpose to change and survive". Some take it as "things that change do so regardless of their station on the planet".

AIDS IS an evolved lifeform. Mutations in viral forms of life are almost always seen for what they are, adaption, a direct correlation to Evolutionary Theory. It did so by mutation, through the jump in vectors from animals to man, so literally speaking, it's fulfilled a purpose, again not divine or man-made, and that "purpose" was to swap genetic pools. It did so, and thus a purpose was fulfilled. Arguing against that is, well, ludicrous.

Why does it rain? To fulfill the purpose of weather patterns. There is no "opinion" about it in aforementioned clouds, there is merely the process. Thus, a purpose. It really is not that complicated.

I think you are getting purpose of things confused with "man-made" notions of importance versus non-importance. Again, a purpose is just a purpose, not some lofty grasped concept only man can take hold of.

"purpose" is a label for an association that takes on meaning to humans.

Case in point:

As I'm sitting at my desk, I'm looking at how my keys are resting on top of a few papers.  Does it serve a purpose there?  I randomly threw my keys on the table and they happened to land on those papers, but is there a purpose in them being there?  If there was a fan blowing in my apartment then I might have consciously placed them there to keep my papers from flying away.  That would constitute a purpose.  My keys would then serve the purpose of keeping my papers in place.  But, that is not the case.  Now, if I were some crazy mystic, i could always make up some belief that maybe there's something in those papers that i don't need to see because they hold some ill-fated consequence by my reading them, therefor, I subconsciously put my keys on them without my knowing and now my keys serve the purpose of preventing me from reading those evil papers.   

Purpose = meaningful association.  'Meaningful' is relative to the observer.

"purpose" is a label for an association that takes on meaning to humans.

Case in point:

As I'm sitting at my desk, I'm looking at how my keys are resting on top of a few papers.  Does it serve a purpose there?  I randomly threw my keys on the table and they happened to land on those papers, but is there a purpose in them being there?  If there was a fan blowing in my apartment then I might have consciously placed them there to keep my papers from flying away.  That would constitute a purpose.  My keys would then serve the purpose of keeping my papers in place.  But, that is not the case.  Now, if I were some crazy mystic, i could always make up some belief that maybe there's something in those papers that i don't need to see because they hold some ill-fated consequence by my reading them, therefor, I subconsciously put my keys on them without my knowing and now my keys serve the purpose of preventing me from reading those evil papers.   

Purpose = meaningful association.  'Meaningful' is relative to the observer.

You are designing the purpose. Beast is saying that natural laws do not have a 'purpose' but rather that they just behave. We SAY it has a purpose, because purpose is a word we are very familiar with. Without purpose we feel scared to do many things, such as live.

meh.

Quote from: beast on April 03, 2007, 05:31:27 PM

I don't know how you can attribute a purpose to AIDS.  To say that evolution is the purpose of AIDS, which is the only thing that can fit the definition of purpose that Midnight gave is ludicrous.  AIDS exists because it is the unguided consequence of random genetic variance in previous virus', that exist because of random molecular changes in chemical reactions, which exist because of random fluctuations in the cooling of suns, which exist because of the big bang.  We could equally say that the purpose of AIDS is the Big Bang.  Does that make sense to you?  Of course it doesn't, because it's not what we mean by "purpose."  AIDS has no purpose.

I believe you are the parrot dealing with "aids and evolution".

I think the problem lies in that the definition of 'evolution' is being used to fit whatever idealism is being suggested. Some take it as "life evolves as a purpose to change and survive". Some take it as "things that change do so regardless of their station on the planet".

"life evolves as a purpose to change and survive" is a misconception of evolution, it's not true.  The reason life evolves is because of natural selection; natural distribution along with a mainly unrelated environment that gives life on one side of the mean a more likely chance of survival than those on the other.

AIDS IS an evolved lifeform. Mutations in viral forms of life are almost always seen for what they are, adaption, a direct correlation to Evolutionary Theory.  It did so by mutation, through the jump in vectors from animals to man, so literally speaking, it's fulfilled a purpose, again not divine or man-made, and that "purpose" was to swap genetic pools. It did so, and thus a purpose was fulfilled. Arguing against that is, well, ludicrous.

You're basing this of an evolutionary misconception.  Life does not 'want' to survive, but rather it survives because it's good at it, and life that does not survive is not so good at it.  You suggest that AIDS has the purpose to swap genetic pools, but this is clearly not the case.  Rather AIDS that does swap will continue for long.  No part of AIDS was attempting to reach that goal, it just happened, and because it happened, the consequence was that AIDS could spread into a new area.

Why does it rain? To fulfill the purpose of weather patterns. There is no "opinion" about it in aforementioned clouds, there is merely the process. Thus, a purpose. It really is not that complicated.

That's clearly not a purpose.  Explain which definition of "purpose" you're using again please.

I think you are getting purpose of things confused with "man-made" notions of importance versus non-importance. Again, a purpose is just a purpose, not some lofty grasped concept only man can take hold of.

I've put forward the definitions of purpose, you need to post which one you're using, because it looks like you don't understand what the word means and are using your own definition.

Charles Darwin with his Evolution Theory doesn't prove anything. I'd rather believe in something more ancient and hopeful rather than listening to one's insane perspective.

You're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe.  Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too?  Why not?

Charles Darwin with his Evolution Theory doesn't prove anything [you're right, it just explains something; it was never out to prove shit][/i]. I'd rather believe in something more ancient and hopeful rather than listening to a few million scientists' insane perspective.

Fixed.

I think adaption is inherent in nature. I'm not sure changing into another species is. I don't believe in creation and I don't think evolution has much evidence, it's based largely on logical assumption. It's good for describing how a species can adapt to different environments but I'll only take it seriously when they can explain to me how something like eyes and other complex organs came to be purely from mutation. I'm just one of those people that believes that the origin of life is currently unknown and I'm waiting for someone to discover the answer

Do you believe nuclear fallout can create people with mutated bodies? I'm guessing you do.
Do you know why it does it? Most likely not... as I'm sure no one here does.

So, to pose a third question, if these answers fit your answers, then why must you know exactly how evolution can mutate a species to another in order to believe in it?


I don't see any difference between the two. Living conditions create mutations. If fallout from a nuclear explosion (which was created by humans, who are so insignificant to the universe) then I'm sure the world, and nature itself, can do much greater things than our egotistical simple selves.

That user ain't here no more. 

That user ain't here no more. 

Booo... how come?

Charles Darwin with his Evolution Theory doesn't prove anything. I'd rather believe in something more ancient and hopeful rather than listening to one's insane perspective.

And that is why the world is filled with idiots. People believe whatever makes them happy, instead of what is actually true.

Quote from: akira on April 07, 2007, 12:54:41 AM

Charles Darwin with his Evolution Theory doesn't prove anything. I'd rather believe in something more ancient and hopeful rather than listening to one's insane perspective.

And that is why the world is filled with idiots. People believe whatever makes them happy, instead of what is actually true.

Short and sweet. Nicely said.