I asked whether or not the process of evolution had a conscience or "mind." Is this a reasonable response?

Question

The Great Gazoo's response: No

The mechanism is pretty well understood. It is entirely based on reproduction and survival. There is no evidence of any thought behind it.

Is this not contradictory and therefore unreasonable? He says it's based on reproduction and survival, which I believe is evidence of a "mind." Reason: Because if evolution were random, wouldn't it be also likely that it were based on the opposite of survival? Instead of evolution tuning itself in a way that allows humans, live to survive, why doesn't it do the opposite? If it didn't have a conscience and was completely random, why is it constantly fine tuning itself in ways that help support life?

Atheists would obviously HAVE to disagree with my reasoning. So, since I already know you disagree with me, EXPLAIN why you disagree with me. I really do not want anyone telling me something like, "well, evolution doesn't have a conscience because that would be rediculous."

Refer back to the question everytime.

First answerer:

You said, "If you roll a ball, it will generally settle on the lowest local point. It doesn't take a mind for it to do that. It's just an optimization of gravity pulling down and the surface pushing up."

This is not evolution, this is laws of physics and gravity. They are two different things.

Since you want to use the laws of gravity and physics to fully support your argument, who created these laws? I thought complete randomness where to be assumed, since if there were order in the universe, that would be evidence/reason of a creator?

I'm listening.

"Species adapt and readapt to these changing climes."

How did this need for species to adapt come about? Why are they so willing to survive? Why do they care to survive, unless they were instilled inside themselves a conscience or belief that says to them, "I don't want to die, because I believe death is bad."

Please explain these things to me, I must not understand them.

This always cracks me up, when atheists don't find what they say as reasonable, they try to make a false analogy that will help there claim.

You said: "This is further complicated by the definition of "conscience". Generally, a mind takes in input, stores it, processes it and gives some response. However, that definition would also include computers as having a mind, though not as complicated a mind as a human.

I think you realize that claim alone, "Generally, a mind takes in input, stores it, processes it and gives some response." is hard for you to make. I believe you understand that it would be hard for you to explain why we even store and process things to begin with, so you use this false analogy about computers. Computers are not humans. The reason this is important is we know where computer's processing power comes from, however, we still don't know where the human processing power comes from.

This supports my belief that you are in denial based on your reasoning.

Dharma: You said, "If there was a previous 'incarnation' of evolution that 'wanted' to cause the failure of life, it would have died out when it was successful. If it was unsuccessful it would be 'strangled' by a more successful evolutionary model that wanted life to succeed."

Your reasoning is interesting and I like your train of thought, but it's still flawed. Here are multiple reasons why:

(1) If this were the case, the "bad evolutionary process" that you speak of turns successful, that would mean that every living thing is destroyed. Now, how does this new "more successful" evolutionary process begin trying to tune life so that it maintains life, when there is no life to begin with?

(2) This would assume that "the more successful" evolutionary process, (the one that wants to save everyone) would be trying to fine tune something that doesn't exist at all!

and (3) If this were actually true, how did a non-living organism create a living organism?

Please fully explain.

BTW: I'm not asking you to prove anything, that would be unreasonable of me. However, simply explain the reasoning and support why you belief this theory you speak of. Thanks.

"Genetic mutations ARE random, and the mutations that make it easier in any way for that individual to survive, are passed down to the next generation. Mutations that make surviving more difficult are less likely to be passed down. It's a very slow process, natural selection of random mutations. Read Richard Dawkins."

Who created this intricate, complex, system/process of mutation?
Do you really just assume this and take it for granted. How can you explain the consistent cycle of "dropping evil traits, and keeping the good ones?" This system of mutation is constant, and I believe it was created by God. Give me better reasoning than what I've given you, and I'll believe I'm wrong.

BTW You also say: "Genetic mutations ARE random."

You state this as fact and I can prove you wrong. They aren't random. Within its system, it is constant. I've just given proof of something you thought you knew, to be wrong.

If you disagree, which I don't even know why I ask. WHEN you disagree, please give support for your disagreement.

You asked: "just 1 simple question do you know what a mind is?"

Yes.

Wayne, good point.

Mr. Obvious: You said:Evolution is a process. It doesn't have a mind."

Evolution is a constant process, constantly fine tuning itself to support our existence. This process you're speaking of is what I refer to when I say "mind."

You're actually supporting my argument.

Mr. Obvious: You said: "Also evolution is NOT random. It is a non-random process. Is Gravity random? When you drop a rock, does it sometimes fly up or sideways instead of down? No.

This is exactly my point. This constant law of gravity implies creation and order. Thank you. I fully support these statements. BTW: God created this type of evolution. For example, 1000 years ago we didn't have cars. Therefore our thought processes of the way we go about creating transportation has evolved.

Honza, are you implying that since our environment wants us to survive, it must have a brain?

Do you unknowlingly believe our environment is God?

BNP: You said: "So what you have is a giant system of continuously drifting equilibrium in which each organism applies pressures on organisms around it (in a long-term fashion). There is no need for a "mind" for changes to occur in a manner supporting reproduction. If you wish to insert one as a matter of belief, feel free. But that is the point of belief- it isn't supposed to be required or proved."

I will have to agree with you, this is a point well taken. This only addresses the fact that there is no need for an evolutionary process to "mindfully" sustain life concerning ONLY reproduction. Which is still a good point and the fact that you didn't yet claim anything beyond this that was not supported, is a relief. Reading on.

BNP: "The first answerer used a very nice metaphor to explain evolution."

I believe this is not a good analogy to explain evolution as a whole. Even if you could support it as a good analogy for reproduction, there are still questions to be answered concerning the laws of gravity and physics. It's just taking the questions and problems relating to evolution and putting them the laws of gravity and physics. Look over my response concerning the first answerer.

Please respond with support on why you agree or disagree with what I've said concerning the validity of this analogy.

BNP: You said, "He doesn't use gravity or physics to support his argument - he uses them as an analogy."

I believe he does: Here's why: He uses gravity and physics not directly, but indirectly to support his argument. He assumes, like you, that the laws of physics and gravity, just are. It seems you deny the possibility they were created. This assumption that these laws just are, is the reason he feels it is appropriate to use this analogy.

However, if you are able to, please give evidence (not proof) as to why you believe it would be impossible for physics to be created by God. If your reasons are reasonable, I will have to reasonably believe your belief that laws of physics and gravity just are.

BNP: You said, "things which don't reproduce don't pass on their genes. This selective force imposes a kind of order on the changes, this is the order you seem to see as evidence of a guiding hand."

You are right in the fact that reproduction does impose a kind of order, and that it can be misinterpreted as evolution guiding this order. However, like I've explained, I already agree with this, and it doesn't cover the entire "mind" or process, of evolution as a whole. It only covers reproduction. However, I use the earth's location and fruit (refer to my previous question) as other examples of evolution guiding us that have nothing to do with reproduction. Also, there is unlimited supply of air, water, and trees to which we all just happen to need in order to survive... Can you explain how we "adapted" into needing exactly the things that were unlimited? Is it a coincidence that our water cycles or trees grow so that we have unlimited supply of water and CO2?

BNP: You said, "If an organism survives better, and reproduces more, it's genes will become more prevalent."

Two problems:

(1) Survives better? How can one better survive than another, if they both survive? If you mean, one survived and the other did not, than it doesn't imply that the survivor was ever better off than he was before. And since this is the basis of your argument, you're going to have to explain this. So, how can one survive "better"(?)

(2) Even if one were able to "survive better," and were able to reproduce more, that doesn't necessarily imply that a survivor who reproduces more will have genes that are more prevalent, it only implies that there will be more of these "better survivors."

BNP: You state, "...Evolution begins with life ."

This is news to me.

You've somehow worked up the nerve to state this as fact. I guess it is up to you to prove to me then, that evolution starts with life. (since stating claims as fact, requires proof, not evidence)

Do you assume the impossibility that evolution only exists in living things? If so, you must then believe every non-living thing in the universe was either created, or has always been. I'd love to hear this explanation.

Answer 1

Evolution isn't random - it is subject to selective pressures.

Basically, the opposite of survival mutations also occur, but because they don't survive the way that the survival ones do, the net result is changes in favor of the survival trait, since the survivors will reproduce more.

So what you have is a giant system of continuously drifting equilibrium in which each organism applies pressures on organisms around it (in a long-term fashion). There is no need for a "mind" for changes to occur in a manner supporting reproduction. If you wish to insert one as a matter of belief, feel free. But that is the point of belief- it isn't supposed to be required or proved.


Additional information response: The first answerer used a very nice metaphor to explain evolution. The tendency under gravitational force for a ball to roll to a minimum is analogous to the tendency under selective pressures for traits which enhance reproduction to become more prevalent.

Additional additional info:
"Since you want to use the laws of gravity and physics to fully support your argument, who created these laws? I thought complete randomness where to be assumed, since if there were order in the universe, that would be evidence/reason of a creator?

I'm listening."

He doesn't use gravity or physics to support his argument - he uses them as an analogy. Complete randomness is not assumed - only certain aspects are random. In evolution the origin of the selective forces are rather obvious - things which don't reproduce don't pass on their genes. This selective force imposes a kind of order on the changes, this is the order you seem to see as evidence of a guiding hand, but such guidance is not a requirement for the changes to occur, hence the answer you quote in your question.

Where do the laws of physics come from? They just are. Human science is not yet a point where it can answer that question. Lack of an answer doesn't mean that there has to be a God, just that we don't have the answer yet.

Additional info^3:
"How did this need for species to adapt come about? Why are they so willing to survive? Why do they care to survive, unless they were instilled inside themselves a conscience or belief that says to them, "I don't want to die, because I believe death is bad."

Please explain these things to me, I must not understand them."
If an organism survives better, and reproduces more, it's genes will become more prevalent. Wanting to survive and reproduce is part of its genetic character. Species without a desire to reproduce die out, because they do not reproduce. It's all self-consistent.


"(3) If this were actually true, how did a non-living organism create a living organism?"
You are changing the subject. Evolution begins with life - it says nothing about the origin of life. The field of Abiogenesis is nowhere near as developed as evolutionary science.

"This system of mutation is constant, and I believe it was created by God. Give me better reasoning than what I've given you, and I'll believe I'm wrong."

The system of mutation is not constant. What actually gets mutated is random. That good traits survive is not an indication of consistency in mutation itself - it is an indication of an outside force influencing which mutations get observed. In this case, the force is described by selective pressures, as only the good traits survive to be observed.



Thank you for at least being rational about this.

Aright, here goes:
Origins: I can no more disprove that physics could not be created by a god than you can prove that they were. This is a fundamental aspect of religion - because you believe you choose to fill that void with God. Because I do not, I see it as a void to be filled by future research.
I think you were reading into the analogy too much. If anything, I would say that the rules governing evolution are more origin-free than physics. They are derived from logic and common sense - that something which reproduces more gets its genes in the genepool more. From a scientific point of view, the laws of physics simply are.

Perfect fit:
I think here you are reversing cause and effect. We did not evolve as humans and than be happy that we fit our environment - the environment existed first and we evolved to suit it. We didn't adapt into needing what is there - we survived because what was there worked for us, while things which would have needed other stuff did not survive.

Answer 2

You are acting like evolution is some sort of creature out there. It is not. It is a biological mechanism. Do you think that pregnancy has a conscience and can think?

Evolution is very simple. There is nothing out there making a conscience decision that a creature will get a certain adaptation or not. It comes down to mutation. We all have mutations. You cannot get thru a day without getting a new one of some sort. They are very insignificant and usually mean nothing. Most mutated cells die quickly. However some mutations can give the animal an advantage.

Lets say there is a group of animals. They feast on leaves. In the spring, the leaves on the trees are abundant. The animals feed like crazy. However, as spring passes and summer starts the reachable leaves on the trees are soon eaten. The only stuff left are the leaves further up the tree. The animals in the group that are taller than the others will have an advantage and can eat these leaves. They have a better chance of keeping nourished and have a better chance to keep on living. This means that there will be a better chance that their genes (including the genes that dictate how tall they were) will be passed on. The other animals without the tall gene will probably survive but with smaller odds. They have a smaller chance of passing on their genes. Given enough time, more and more animals of the population will be taller because the tall gene will have a better chance of being passes on.

Lets say that an animal in the group has a mutation that gives a slightly longer neck. This gives that animal even more of an edge and a better chance of survival. Once again, the mutated gene that caused the longer neck has a better chance to be passed on. Given enough time, the gene will make it into the population and more animals will have the longer neck. The animals without the gene will have to compete with those that do. The ones with the gene have a better chance of surviving and passing on the gene.

Now, multiply this scenario a million times. The animals will change slightly with each generation. In any single generation, the change might not be too noticable but over multiple generations, the change is noticable. Over millenia, the animals would be very different.

Evolution works because it is giving the animals a better chance of survival. If it did as you suggest, gave the animals a smaller chance of survival, then the genes that were changed would result in more and more animals dying. Those that had the genes would be more likely to die and if they can pass on the genes, then those offspring would have a better chance of dying. This would result in the extinction of animals. That will not work.

There is no evidence to suggest that there is a conscience behind evolution. Your reasoning is based on a leap of logic. "Evolution appears to be ordered therefore there is a conscienceness behind it" is a leap of logic. There is no evidence to support it.

Answer 3

No, it does not have a mind.

If you roll a ball, it will generally settle on the lowest local point. It doesn't take a mind for it to do that. It's just an optimization of gravity pulling down and the surface pushing up.

Evolution works in much the same way. It can go in random directions, but there is an influence on this process. Things that fit the environment better tend to survive better. Just as the ball finds a relatively optimal point between surface and gravity, species drift into states that are more optimized for reproduction, resource usage, and protection.

A ball doesn't always come to rest at the lowest point, though. It may only come to a local optima. There may be a lower point, that, if the ball had more momentum to get over a ridge, it might find. Also, if you add more balls, and interaction between balls, that local optima might change due to interactions between the balls. This happens in planetary orbits in space. Also, if the surface changes, the place the ball comes to rest will change.

In the same way, organisms affect other organisms. So, what would be successful traits alone might be fatal in the presence of a preditor. Also, the environment is varied and changing. Species adapt and readapt to these changing climes.

This is further complicated by the definition of "conscience". Generally, a mind takes in input, stores it, processes it and gives some response. However, that definition would also include computers as having a mind, though not as complicated a mind as a human. You can even apply the definition to a light switch, though that would be a very trivial mind. If you add the idea that a conscience has emotions, then the definition of an emotion becomes tricky.

Answer 4

The difficulty lies in the underlying premise that in order for there to be an individual mind, there must be an God mind it was fashioned by. The fact that an individual animal may have a brain, and even something you would call a mind, does not then mean that there is an overarching mind guiding that mind.

When one strongly believes, as you evidently do, that all you do is guided by God, then it would probably be very difficult to comprehend a belief that the operation of a living creature could be guided simply by input/response methodology. The reason this doesn't work is your other premise, that evolution is totally random.

Evolution is not random. It follows a logical progression of adaptation and change based on environmental influences (among others). Humans are probably the most adaptive species to walk on the earth. Beyond changes in physical characteristics over time, we adapt our own environment, something that other creatures rarely do (rarely have the ability to do, as well).

That being said, the fact that is follows a logical process does not mean it is guided by some overarching God figure. These are two different discussions entirely. Water flows down hill...it causes errosion as it does...this errosion makes sediment...this sediment forms deltas....these deltas support certain wildlife...none of this is random. But, because it is not random does not mean that it is following the guidance of a being of some kind. What it means to many is that it is following the ultimate controlling factor...natural laws of physics.

The laws of physics don't have a conscience...they work at all times. They don't say...this person is good, so they will have gravity, but this person is bad so they will float to the ionosphere and die. The rules are the same for all beings. Things work the way they do because of these laws of physics. Species survive when they adapt...species die when they do not. The laws of physics remove the element of randomness in many respects.

I hope this may answer what you are asking. I know that it won't convince you that it's the right point of view, but you were asking for an explanation. That's what I believe explains why some believe there is no mind in evolution.

Answer 5

Yes, it's a perfectly reasonable response.
Evolution is a name given to genetic changes between generations. These changes do not necessarily support life, mutations are random and not always beneficial. But say organism A is born with a beneficial mutation, and organism B is born with no eyes. Organism B is unlikely to survive long enough to reproduce, so its mutation remains an isolated occurrence. Organism A however is likely to reproduce, passing on its genes to another generation and, over time, possibly the entire population.
So you see, evolution is random but its results appear ordered because only the positive results last long enough for us to see them. This may create the illusion of a conscious, ordered system. But as I've shown the illusion is quite easy to explain.

When I mentioned that the organism was born without eyes, it was implied that it belonged to a species that generally has eyes. I thought that was obvious. And I think we can agree that when a normally-sighted animal loses its ability to see it is at a distinct disadvantage in terms of both reproduction and survival.
And I did not say that "it is all random". I said that whether a mutation is beneficial or not is random, and I implied that whether a mutation occurs is random, but I never said that it's "all random". When it comes to passing on genetic information, in the majority of cases an organism gets its genes from its parents. Mutations are the exception, not the rule. So the offspring of organism B would carry the 'no eyes' gene. They may still have eyes (assuming their other parent did not have the defective gene), but they would carry the 'no eyes' gene which may result in the 'no eyes' phenotype in their offspring, or their offspring's offspring, and so on.
I also deliberately didn't mention people, since our medical science messes with natural selection quite significantly. Please try to read my answers more carefully in the future.

As for "When I say, the process of evolution has a "mind" I'm simply referring to it, that it has a basis for how it goes about, and it doesn't stop at the reproduction cycle." I have no idea what you're trying to express. Seriously, 'it has a basis for how it goes about'? How what goes about what? And what do you mean by 'it doesn't stop at the reproduction cycle'? You seem to present this idea as contrary to my statement "Evolution is a name given to genetic changes between generations". Perhaps you should explain what exactly you think evolution does, because you certainly don't seem to be using the traditional definition of 'evolution'.

Answer 6

What the responder meant, IMO, when referring to evolution being based on survival, is that only those animals that survive can reproduce, and only the animals with the correct traits for their environment, are likely to survive. The trait becomes more dominant in the population if the majority of those who survive have that trait. That isn't something that is directed by a consciousness, just a factor of environment. (survival of the fittest).

Fine tuning isn't exactly an accurate term either... Individuals within a population sometimes develop new traits through genetic drift or mutation. If that new trait is helpful in its environment, it will thrive better than an individual without that trait, and will be more likely to reproduce. This is seldom a fast process, which is why many species go extinct when their environment changes too quickly... We'll be seeing a lot more of that in the next century, especially with plants and animals that cannot migrate fast enough or have no place to go because of human habitation when global warming ruins their current habitats.

Answer 7

There's a semantic issue here. We don't have agreed-upon definitions of conscience or mind -- or intelligence, or consciousness, or ...

There certainly are forces, or a set of principles, perhaps a consciousness or intelligence, perhaps consciousness itself -- that drives the development of mutations in genes.

I disagree that evolution fine-tunes itself in ways that support life. It is, in fact, "based on the opposite of survival". A mutation that doesn't kill the organism may survive to reproduce. A mutation that does kill the organism before it reproduces will die out and not be transmitted. Lots and lots of death is required -- of individuals and of species -- while the survivors continue to survive and change. If this were not the case, then all variations would survive (seen any mastodons lately?)

A whole species of humans -- Neanderthals -- went extinct. The process of evolution didn't have a problem with that.

Randomness is the means by which possibilities are generated. Most of the possibilities aren't viable, and die out.

Answer 8

I fail to see how survival is consciousness or a "mind". Evolution is a mechanism. And survival is the part of the mechanism that allowed it to change a species. Evolution isn't random because of some guiding force, it is non random because things survive better with certain genetics, which occur randomly.

You are thinking of the survival aspect as a given attribute to evolution, which it isn't. Survival due to one's genetics is logical based on how organisms interact. But it isn't something that had to be given to evolution, or applied to evolution by some consciousness.

It is like saying that since gravity is based on mass, then some consciousness had to make it that way. But gravity being based on mass is just how it is.

Answer 9

Evolution doesn't select for survival traits. It selects for reproductive success. It helps to have things that survive long enough to reproduce. If organism A successfully reproduces, then it passes on its genetic material to the next generation. Since it survived long enough to reproduce, the survival instinct, and any other genetic material that helped the organism survive and reproduce, gets passed to the next generation.

So, since larger brains made it possible for humans to figure out how to survive, and made it possible to reproduce more readily, bigger brains were passed from generation to generation, until we got to the point where we were thinking of things beyond the next meal, place to sleep, although perhaps not beyond the next opportunity to mate. As we had limited information to go on, we started trying to assign meaning to the world and reasons for things that we didn't understand.

Religion and technology are both products of this evolution. "I can spend all day hunting and gathering, and eat for a day or two, or I can start harvesting and planting and eat forever..." "Why did that storm destroy my hut? God must be angry with me."

Early reason was limited by lack of information. Now, religions have been entrenched in the human psyche for thousands of years. I suppose you just get used to it after a while.

Answer 10

"Instead of evolution tuning itself in a way that allows humans, live to survive, why doesn't it do the opposite?"

Happens all the time. A population evolves for a particular environment, the environment changes faster than the generational pace of evolution, and the population is wiped out. So the differential success that led to the population having a particular set of traits doomed it. Think dodos when humans were introduced (especially since it would have worked with any new predator).