4 ms·
You clearly misunderstand your own theory, because this specific paper written by an evolutionist (on TalkOrigins, the shrine of evidence for Evolution) reinfor
by kirse 18y ago
You clearly misunderstand your own theory, because this specific paper written by an evolutionist (on TalkOrigins, the shrine of evidence for Evolution) reinforces the view on why biological evolution has no goal:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
When Dawkins talks about genes maximising their representation in the gene pool, this is a metaphor not an explanation. Genes just replicate. It happens that those that out-replicate others end up out-surviving them. There is no 'goal' to genetic behaviour.
Evolutionists are always screaming about the evidence, and it's rarely been debated that biological evolution is completely devoid of a designer, purpose, intelligence, or end goal anywhere in the process. That's one of the basic truths you get out of the naturalistic assumptions that base biological Evolution.
- demallien 18y ago1) It's not my theory 2) Whilst it is true that individual genes do not have goals, it is not true that natural evolution, as a search algorithm, does not. When we talk about goals for GAs (which is of course the context of this very discussion we are having), we are specifically talking about high values of the fitness function of the GA. In the case of natural evolution, the 'goal' is to reproduce a gene as much as possible. Note, this is a goal of the GA, not of the gene, and the usage of the word here does not indicate an actually entity with a motivation, but simply reuses terminology that is quite common in discussion of search algorithms (evolution being but one example of these).