Why things evolve?

[bahman]

There is an agreement between scientist that each being/thing evolve as a matter of fit better in a situation. The fitness is allowed toward a better end because of random change in structure of any being/thing.

We know that random change does not offer any benefit so the main question is: Where does this capacity to fit better comes from? Doesn't that mean that we are evolving because objective perfection exist?

[MatejValuch]

There is an agreement between scientist that each being/thing evolve as a matter of fit better in a situation. The fitness is allowed toward a better end because of random change in structure of any being/thing.

I think that humans do not evolve recently, certainly not to the better.
Maybe it's because of the dramatic speed with which things around us change nowadays, and our "evolution" can not match that pace, cannot "fit better" in the situation. We are falling more and more behind actually. . . .
And I also do not think that other living beings evolve to the better (doesn't matter if we talk in scope of tens or thousands of years), sorry. Then the answer to your question seems irrelevant.

[Terrapin Station]

The concept of biological evolution does not imply progress or betterment or anything like that. That's a misunderstanding of the concept of evolution. It's a depressingly common misunderstanding, which makes it quite difficult to not keep running into it, but it's a misunderstanding nonetheless.

Things evolve simply because "perfect" or identical reproduction isn't possible.

[bahman]

The concept of biological evolution does not imply progress or betterment or anything like that. That's a misunderstanding of the concept of evolution. It's a depressingly common misunderstanding, which makes it quite difficult to not keep running into it, but it's a misunderstanding nonetheless.

Things evolve simply because "perfect" or identical reproduction isn't possible.

You are not really offering too much. Obviously the fact thing evolves means that they didn't reach to perfection. The problem that I am raising is that why perfection should exist at all as an objective target to allow that things evolve toward perfection?

[Terrapin Station]

You are not really offering too much. Obviously the fact thing evolves means that they didn't reach to perfection. The problem that I am raising is that why perfection should exist at all as an objective target to allow that things evolve toward perfection?

"Evolve towards perfection" is misconceiving evolution as being about progress or betterment. It's not about that. It implies nothing about progress or betterment. Only change.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why don't you just say what you mean?
'Stuff evolves and that means that there must be a god-thing doing it'. Or would that make you look even more like an idiot?

Better still, why don't you read up on what evolution actually is before posting? It has nothing to do with 'perfection', attainable or not.

[bahman]

Why don't you just say what you mean?

I said what I meant. I am puzzled with the fact that things evolve. Nothing in net comes out of a random process, an essential part for evolution. So there must be something which give a effective direction to changes.

'Stuff evolves and that means that there must be a god-thing doing it'. Or would that make you look even more like an idiot?

I didn't mean that there is a god-thing which does changes. I am arguing that things evolve.

[bahman]

You are not really offering too much. Obviously the fact thing evolves means that they didn't reach to perfection. The problem that I am raising is that why perfection should exist at all as an objective target to allow that things evolve toward perfection?

"Evolve towards perfection" is misconceiving evolution as being about progress or betterment. It's not about that. It implies nothing about progress or betterment. Only change.

Evolution is about progress and betterment.

[Terrapin Station]

Nothing in net comes out of a random process

First off, what science claims that anything about evolution is ontologically random? Aren't you the one always arguing that science posits physical laws? What happened to those?

[Terrapin Station]

You are not really offering too much. Obviously the fact thing evolves means that they didn't reach to perfection. The problem that I am raising is that why perfection should exist at all as an objective target to allow that things evolve toward perfection?

"Evolve towards perfection" is misconceiving evolution as being about progress or betterment. It's not about that. It implies nothing about progress or betterment. Only change.

Evolution is about progress and betterment.

Wrong.

Maybe try at least reading some pop-science works, if not textbooks, about evolution if you're sincerely interested in understanding it.

Vegetariantaxidermy is spot on that almost everything you argue is basically out of apologetics 101, just where you're trying to veil that fact. This includes that you've got all the same old $h|t completely wrong that apologists always get wrong, you constantly forward the same old idiotic straw men, etc. An example is immediately above with the nonsense about evolution being "random." That's straight out of the apologetics "Oops we didn't actually study any of the stuff we're arguing against" handbook (as is the idea that evolution has something to do with "progress").

[bahman]

Nothing in net comes out of a random process

First off, what science claims that anything about evolution is ontologically random? Aren't you the one always arguing that science posits physical laws? What happened to those?

I believe in physical laws. What I am addressing is that there is an element of randomness for evolution. It is simple, we couldn't have any evolution if DNA couldn't change. DNA in fact change randomly. What is the output of this change could possibly manage to survive easier in a given situation.

[bahman]

"Evolve towards perfection" is misconceiving evolution as being about progress or betterment. It's not about that. It implies nothing about progress or betterment. Only change.

Evolution is about progress and betterment.

Wrong.

Maybe try at least reading some pop-science works, if not textbooks, about evolution if you're sincerely interested in understanding it.

Vegetariantaxidermy is spot on that almost everything you argue is basically out of apologetics 101, just where you're trying to veil that fact. This includes that you've got all the same old $h|t completely wrong that apologists always get wrong, you constantly forward the same old idiotic straw men, etc. An example is immediately above with the nonsense about evolution being "random." That's straight out of the apologetics "Oops we didn't actually study any of the stuff we're arguing against" handbook (as is the idea that evolution has something to do with "progress").

Please read the previous post.

[Arising_uk]

... What is the output of this change could possibly manage to survive easier in a given situation.

You don't understand or misunderstand or deliberately ignore the role of reproduction and the 'sieve' of natural selection in the Theory of Evolution.

[Terrapin Station]

I believe in physical laws. What I am addressing is that there is an element of randomness for evolution.

Show me a reference to a scientific work that posits this.

[Arising_uk]

Show me a reference to a scientific work that posits this.

Mutation?