Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)

  • 152 Replies
  • 15484 Views
*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21044
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #120 on: March 08, 2018, 12:35:30 AM »
So you disagree with evolutionary theory?

No.


I was sure you were making smart ass comments at Bhs trying to make yourself look smart.

When you are confused, ask for clarification.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #121 on: March 08, 2018, 12:37:43 AM »
So you disagree with evolutionary theory?

No.

So micro evolution does exist and things do adapt to their environment?

It seems to me like you accept macro evolution while calling micro evolution pseudoscience.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #122 on: March 08, 2018, 12:39:44 AM »
@User, I wanna see this addressed.

Anyway @BHS I still wait for you providing ANY evidence for an intelligent design.

The golden ratio. This is evidence for intelligent design, it's not proof but it's evidence of a designer.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/fibonacci-sequence.html
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #123 on: March 08, 2018, 12:52:53 AM »
Anyway @BHS I still wait for you providing ANY evidence for an intelligent design.

The golden ratio. This is evidence for intelligent design, it's not proof but it's evidence of a designer.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/fibonacci-sequence.html
Isn't the fibonacci sequence literally the easiest and simplest method to create an always the-same-(proportion wise) spiral? So wouldn't it be the most obvious path to take for evolution? Would there even be ANY way of creating a spiral or a regular pattern that you couldn't describe mathematically and thus make the same 'argument' of intelligent design? Last but not least, what would make you think nature (evolution) wouldn't craete regular patterns? Some patterns, e.g. the hexagon - and probably the fibonacci spiral, too - have mechanical advantages while being super simple, thus makes them evolutionary preferred.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21044
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #124 on: March 08, 2018, 12:56:03 AM »
So you disagree with evolutionary theory?

No.

So micro evolution does exist and things do adapt to their environment?

It seems to me like you accept macro evolution while calling micro evolution pseudoscience.

I have no control over what you think. Apparently, neither do you.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #125 on: March 08, 2018, 01:03:00 AM »
Anyway @BHS I still wait for you providing ANY evidence for an intelligent design.

The golden ratio. This is evidence for intelligent design, it's not proof but it's evidence of a designer.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/fibonacci-sequence.html
Isn't the fibonacci sequence literally the easiest and simplest method to create an always the-same-(proportion wise) spiral?

Yes it's perfect.
When have you seen perfection come about from random chance?
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #126 on: March 08, 2018, 01:04:13 AM »
So you disagree with evolutionary theory?

No.

So micro evolution does exist and things do adapt to their environment?

It seems to me like you accept macro evolution while calling micro evolution pseudoscience.

I have no rebuttal and I am scared that if I argue honestly I won't be able to keep my position based in cognitive dissonance and emotion.

I get that a lot.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21044
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #127 on: March 08, 2018, 01:07:58 AM »
Anyway @BHS I still wait for you providing ANY evidence for an intelligent design.

The golden ratio. This is evidence for intelligent design, it's not proof but it's evidence of a designer.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/fibonacci-sequence.html

The banana is more evidence of Intelligent Design . . .  (1m:2s length)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=64&v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21044
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #128 on: March 08, 2018, 01:16:32 AM »
So you disagree with evolutionary theory?

No.

So micro evolution does exist and things do adapt to their environment?

It seems to me like you accept macro evolution while calling micro evolution pseudoscience.

I have no control over what you think. Apparently, neither do you.


I have no rebuttal and I am scared that if I argue honestly I won't be able to keep my position based in cognitive dissonance and emotion.


You accidentally put your reply in place of my post. All is back in order now.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #129 on: March 08, 2018, 01:16:51 AM »
Anyway @BHS I still wait for you providing ANY evidence for an intelligent design.

The golden ratio. This is evidence for intelligent design, it's not proof but it's evidence of a designer.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/fibonacci-sequence.html
Isn't the fibonacci sequence literally the easiest and simplest method to create an always the-same-(proportion wise) spiral?

Yes it's perfect.
When have you seen perfection come about from random chance?
If the result of the random chance gets selected and gives the result of the randomness to the following generations, the answer is: quite often.

I mean seriously, what makes you think things like the fibonacci sequence wouldn't be logically following in evolution?!


Edit: Also I find 'intelligent design' a very missleading term. I mean, evolution is certainly an 'intelligent design' in a lot of ways, except that my understanding of 'intelligent desing in evolution' does not require a god to do the designing, nature & the laws of physics are doing it just fine :)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 01:20:10 AM by User324 »
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #130 on: March 08, 2018, 01:34:35 AM »
I mean, evolution is certainly an 'intelligent design' in a lot of ways,

Actually it is not. By description there can be zero intelligence in evolution. It is an action of dumb things being done trillions and trillions of times, then just by randomness​ so many times you are able to produce something that actually works.

It's a bit silly when you think about it.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12011
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #131 on: March 08, 2018, 01:37:53 AM »
I mean, evolution is certainly an 'intelligent design' in a lot of ways,

Actually it is not. By description there can be zero intelligence in evolution. It is an action of dumb things being done trillions and trillions of times, then just by randomness​ so many times you are able to produce something that actually works.

It's a bit silly when you think about it.

Actually you've almost got it.  Now repeat what you just said,  but take out all the ones of those trillions that didn't reproduce.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #132 on: March 08, 2018, 01:47:20 AM »
@BHS you probably missed that:

I except what we have seen so far and can prove.
That wasn't really an answer to my question. I'd prefer a clear answer to what I have asked instead of a getting-around-it.

However​, evolution has hit a brick wall every time with no progress since we started researching it.
I don't think science has hit a brick wall. Can you elaborate?
Especially with our current ability to analyze proteins, relations between different species can be analyzed very, very well.
If you are talking about recreating big parts of evolution (macroevolution) in a lab, arguments why it isn't easily possible have been brought up already multiple times (time, size of laboratory/how many organism you can use in the lab, trouble of getting 'perfect conditions', dna repair mechanism that are better than a long time ago, and so on).
I wouldn't call that a brick wall at all, just a lack of time and possibilites.

However, you will never be able to mix a duck and a horse.
That's hardly even related to evolution and certainly not what evolution claims to be able to do.

In answer to your second question, what are you talking about? I am not aware of anything useless on us...everything once thought useless is proving to be the exact opposite. It is just our understanding at that time...
I bet there would be lot's of examples.
For a start, we have a very funny nerve that starts in the brain, then goes down to our chest, around the aorta, then back up to the larynx (of course we have two of those, one on each side).


Science used to assure us the appendix was useless and a redundant organ, but this has found later not to be true
First of all, I agree with you and BHS that just because we don't understand something 100% it doesn't make it useless/wrong (applies to evolution, too, just because we don't understand every part doesn't make evolution wrong).
But you know, in terms of understanding human anatomy, we are VERY far (except for the brain, there I'd say we're just at the beginning).

Regarding the appendix, I'm pretty sure that since we have decent microscope, every scientist from that subject knew the appendix isn't useless. And that'd be probably since decades. But yeah, some 'dogms' are existing for quite a while, although disproven long ago - even in science.

Anyway @BHS I still wait for you providing ANY evidence for an intelligent design.
________________
Anway, it's all about how you define intelligence. By every common understanding evoltion's result is certainly intelligent in lot's of ways.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #133 on: March 08, 2018, 02:02:02 AM »
I mean, evolution is certainly an 'intelligent design' in a lot of ways,

Actually it is not. By description there can be zero intelligence in evolution. It is an action of dumb things being done trillions and trillions of times, then just by randomness​ so many times you are able to produce something that actually works.

It's a bit silly when you think about it.

Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #134 on: March 08, 2018, 04:19:36 AM »
Evolution is adaptation, it doesn't make sense to say that there is adaptatation (if you are going to admit that it is due to genetic change) but not evolution.

Randomness can lead to things that are more perfect than human beings, at least at certain jobs. See pretty much the whole of the big parts of the AI industry - None of the best AI are designed by hand. The only thing designed by hand is the environment the AI are tested in, as well as a system to generate random AI:s and a system to "mutate" AI:s. Things that affect evolution, but that are not evolution themselves. So you can't use these select few intelligently designed parts of the development of AI as an argument that evolution requires intelligent design, the best argument you can make is that things had to start out with intelligent design. While AI:s have a long way to go before being as versatile as humans are, a lot of the best AI today completely outmatches humans at at least one task. So the argument that randomness can't lead to something very functional is wrong.

If one organisms dna changes, the organism as a whole will be slightly different from the other of it's species. That is not silly, is it?

Now, one change of something times a few thousands is a total change that is greater than the lone change. This isn't silly either, right?

It's basic math. Say I have two dots on the same spot on a coordinate system, and I continually update the dots by adding a really small random vector. The dots will have really similar positions in the beginning, being quite indistinguishable. But over time there is a possibility that the dots will part ways and eventually their positions are going to be really different. With every new iteration, the "old" dots and the "new" dots are basically the same, but the difference between the origin dot and the ten millionth dot could be really big. A lot of small changes together make a big change. That is evolution. Each change is not enough to cause speciation, each change could be what bhs and d1 wants to call nothing but an "adaptation", but what stops the new adapted organism from going another step in the same direction to better adapt? And another one? It's basically the same species with every new step, but at some point the accumulation of changes in one direction will be quite large. Unless you want to argue that the adaptations are infinitesimals, it's impossible for repeated adaptation to not lead to larger changes in total. So it's plain ignorant to call the idea that some huge number times a small number can equal a big number "silly" (a lot of small changes will lead to a substantial change).
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21044
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #135 on: March 08, 2018, 05:40:28 AM »
Species do not evolve to fit the changing environment.
The changing environment strips out the less fit.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #136 on: March 08, 2018, 06:03:50 AM »
Species do not evolve to fit the changing environment.
The changing environment strips out the less fit.
True, but we can call it adaptation when a new strand of gene that increases the fitness is spread through a population. It gets the point across.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25227
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #137 on: March 08, 2018, 01:41:25 PM »
The giraffe with long necks is an interesting one. Apparently only those with the longest necks could reach food so that's why that particular trait is kept. But noticeable evolution is supposed to take place over tens of thousands of years. If there was an existential thread from a food shortage, they would perish long before the long neck gene to reach food could be useful

But there were plenty of animals evolving alongside the giraffe that had little to almost no necks at all that managed just fine. Obviously the threat of not being able to reach food was not responsible for their long necks. The long neck also presents other problems. Takes a lot of muscle to keep it up thus requiring more calories eaten a day to sustain itself. Being mostly a prey animal it doesn't make it very discreet. It has no vocal cords and the giraffe can never lie down for long. The long neck while unique and pretty appears to be a hindrance to survival or success in the wild. (At least for the age in which they are around - maybe it will pay off in a few thousand years but then how did they know?)

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15417
  • Djinn
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #138 on: March 08, 2018, 01:52:39 PM »
The giraffe with long necks is an interesting one. Apparently only those with the longest necks could reach food so that's why that particular trait is kept. But noticeable evolution is supposed to take place over tens of thousands of years. If there was an existential thread from a food shortage, they would perish long before the long neck gene to reach food could be useful

But there were plenty of animals evolving alongside the giraffe that had little to almost no necks at all that managed just fine. Obviously the threat of not being able to reach food was not responsible for their long necks. The long neck also presents other problems. Takes a lot of muscle to keep it up thus requiring more calories eaten a day to sustain itself. Being mostly a prey animal it doesn't make it very discreet. It has no vocal cords and the giraffe can never lie down for long. The long neck while unique and pretty appears to be a hindrance to survival or success in the wild. (At least for the age in which they are around - maybe it will pay off in a few thousand years but then how did they know?)

If the only food available required that then you might have a point.  Evolution produces niche creatures.  Other creatures specialized in fighting for the low hanging fruits.  The giraffes specialized in just reaching higher.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25227
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #139 on: March 08, 2018, 02:10:13 PM »
Evolution produces niche creatures.


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Rayzor

  • 12011
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #140 on: March 08, 2018, 02:55:02 PM »
Evolution produces niche creatures.



Pro tip: If you are going to post selfies,  try to get a better angle.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25227
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #141 on: March 08, 2018, 03:39:00 PM »
Maybe it helps better if I smile?


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Rayzor

  • 12011
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #142 on: March 08, 2018, 03:46:38 PM »
Maybe it helps better if I smile?



Not really.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25227
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #143 on: March 08, 2018, 04:24:09 PM »
Hmm. Let me put on my wig and make up....



Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12176
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #144 on: March 08, 2018, 05:11:31 PM »
What particular part of your anatomy do you feel is not like it should be?
Body hair.
Makes sense as a leftover from ancestors that had fur for warmth, but humans don't have enough for that purpose.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #145 on: March 08, 2018, 09:17:03 PM »
The giraffe with long necks is an interesting one. Apparently only those with the longest necks could reach food so that's why that particular trait is kept. But noticeable evolution is supposed to take place over tens of thousands of years. If there was an existential thread from a food shortage, they would perish long before the long neck gene to reach food could be useful

This is very silly when evolution is used as the reason. Evolution wanted the animal to reach the high food? Lol, how about no Scott. (This isn't directed at you shifter, just using your quote.)

Evolution wants nothing, evolution does not care, evolution has no will to survive or care for any other creatures survival. Evolution is simply a bag of raw ingredients being shook for a very long time hoping to make something usable.

This would go down to my thread a while back, of how evolution is a religion. It is simply switching one God for another...

Maybe the reason we are always having to add intelligence, desire, will, motivation to us and everything else being on Earth is because there was an intelligent designer.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #146 on: March 08, 2018, 10:13:47 PM »
Apparently you always forget to address my posts. Understandable because they are impossible to refute.

I except what we have seen so far and can prove.
That wasn't really an answer to my question. I'd prefer a clear answer to what I have asked instead of a getting-around-it.

However​, evolution has hit a brick wall every time with no progress since we started researching it.
I don't think science has hit a brick wall. Can you elaborate?
Especially with our current ability to analyze proteins, relations between different species can be analyzed very, very well.
If you are talking about recreating big parts of evolution (macroevolution) in a lab, arguments why it isn't easily possible have been brought up already multiple times (time, size of laboratory/how many organism you can use in the lab, trouble of getting 'perfect conditions', dna repair mechanism that are better than a long time ago, and so on).
I wouldn't call that a brick wall at all, just a lack of time and possibilites.

However, you will never be able to mix a duck and a horse.
That's hardly even related to evolution and certainly not what evolution claims to be able to do.

In answer to your second question, what are you talking about? I am not aware of anything useless on us...everything once thought useless is proving to be the exact opposite. It is just our understanding at that time...
I bet there would be lot's of examples.
For a start, we have a very funny nerve that starts in the brain, then goes down to our chest, around the aorta, then back up to the larynx (of course we have two of those, one on each side).


Science used to assure us the appendix was useless and a redundant organ, but this has found later not to be true
First of all, I agree with you and BHS that just because we don't understand something 100% it doesn't make it useless/wrong (applies to evolution, too, just because we don't understand every part doesn't make evolution wrong).
But you know, in terms of understanding human anatomy, we are VERY far (except for the brain, there I'd say we're just at the beginning).

Regarding the appendix, I'm pretty sure that since we have decent microscope, every scientist from that subject knew the appendix isn't useless. And that'd be probably since decades. But yeah, some 'dogms' are existing for quite a while, although disproven long ago - even in science.

Anyway @BHS I still wait for you providing ANY evidence for an intelligent design.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #147 on: March 08, 2018, 10:24:13 PM »
Exactly, evolution doesn't have any wants. Therefore, if a creature happens to get a longer neck and thus can reach food that no other creature can reach, thus ensuring that they always have some food, there is no reason for this mutation to go away, and multiple neck-lengtening mutations can stack on top of each other over time until it's no longer advantageous to have a longer neck than the creature already has. It's not about a food shortage causing this, it's that IF there is a food shortage this creature won't go extinct because of that. It has one less reason to die compared to a short-necked creature, so in that regard they are less likely to fail to pass on their genes.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Zaphod

  • 137
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #148 on: March 08, 2018, 10:34:41 PM »

This is very silly when evolution is used as the reason. Evolution wanted the animal to reach the high food? Lol, how about no Scott. (This isn't directed at you shifter, just using your quote.)

Evolution wants nothing, evolution does not care, evolution has no will to survive or care for any other creatures survival. Evolution is simply a bag of raw ingredients being shook for a very long time hoping to make something usable.

This would go down to my thread a while back, of how evolution is a religion. It is simply switching one God for another...

Maybe the reason we are always having to add intelligence, desire, will, motivation to us and everything else being on Earth is because there was an intelligent designer.

BHS, - it's pretty clear from this post, and others from you in this thread, that you really don't understand much about evolution - what it is and how it works.

This is an excellent website that will walk you through the basics

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

I can also very highly recommend Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth - The Evidence for Evolution". If you PM me I can probably email you a copy!

https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520577215&sr=1-1&keywords=greatest+show+on+earth

edit

I know some people are put off by Dawkins' "style", especially his rather strident approach during religious debates. But please trust me, this book is nothing like The God Delusion in its style. Dawkins is a wonderful science educator and The Greatest Show on Earth is beautifully written. Have a read of the amazon reviews from the link above and give it a go.

I've also just been having another "play" with the evolution website linked above. Again, really good.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 11:23:35 PM by Zaphod »

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21044
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Evolution (attempt to avoid derailment)
« Reply #149 on: March 10, 2018, 01:32:31 PM »
Species do not evolve to fit the changing environment.
The changing environment strips out the less fit.
True, but we can call it adaptation when a new strand of gene that increases the fitness is spread through a population. It gets the point across.

That makes it appear that evolution has a goal. As if evolution is a driving force overcoming a specific challenge when evolution  is actually just taking blind advantage of a random opportunity.