does the pointlessness of your life bother you?

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]

On your quote do you believe life has survived through naturaul selection, or really dislike the idea of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you're trying to say.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the organism that died off or didnt pass its genes down, more than likely wanted too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're allowed to think what you want, but you're incorrect. You're anthropomorphizing natural selection and genes (and animals too). A gene doesn't care whether it is replicated or not. Natural selection is just a process--it has no motivation or purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
Animals in the wild life (non-human), I believe main goal/purpose is to survive, and proceate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're anthropomorphizing animals. There is no evidence that inhuman animals have goals at all.

[GTL]

i studied a bit of biology and anthropology in college and most people believe that evolution has a purpose. all scientific study up to this point has indicated that evolutionary forces have no goal or purpose. they are more akin to gravity or magnetism. they just act.

the interesting thing, is that the different evolutionary forces cause different evolutionary changes. for example, natural selection tends to keep a species genetically similar to past generations. for the most part animals with mutations and other genetic differences are not procreating. most changes are caused by other forces of evolution. often times what creates a new species is simply a geographic isolation from a main population.

this is obviously not always the case though.

also, people arguing that human beings are no longer undergoing evolution because technology makes our lives too easy are flat out wrong. the reason why european diseases wiped out the majority of the indigenous population in the Americas most likely has an evolutionary explanation. City living in Europe caused the proliferation of epidemic diseases (they evolved from diseases in animal populations). This made death from disease the main cause of death in Europe. Over time, European populations evolved and developed immunitites to many of the diseases. In the Americas there were very few large cities, so there were not similar immunities.

In more modern times, scientists have documented genetic changes in African American populations with regard to the genes that code for sickle cell. This is another evolution tied closely to epidemic disease. having some sickle cells helps with immunity to Malaria, therefore the gene is present in most populations where you find the disease. The rate of African Americans who carry the gene has been decreasing in the Americas because there is no risk of Malaria.

Again, these changes weren't caused because people decided, I don't want to get sick let me switch my genes. It was just caused because of different forces acting on large populations.

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]

Thats a bold statement, the fact that animal mothers care for their young ones, birds fly south in the winter, bees pollinate, hundreds of other examples of animals doing what it takes to survive. Animals taking part in nature. If you want to break it down to single cell amebias your dead on but I think most if not all life (non-human) main purpose is to live and survive.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that if animals didn't do what it takes to survive, they would not survive. The species would go extinct. So obviously, all animals that exist now do everything it takes to survive.

[amplify]

MHoydilla, I think you just need to read The Selfish Gene and Donk's argument will become more clear to you.

[swingdoc]

Does anyone else wonder about the possibility that morality is dependent on a purpose to life?

[amplify]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else wonder about the possibility that morality is dependent on a purpose to life?

[/ QUOTE ]
This depends on whether morality is external or internal. If external, if morality is imposed on us by God, government, or society, then those imposing the rules have a responsibility to conform these to the purpose of the universe. If internal, if we look deeply inside ourselves to determine what is truly best for us, those around us, and our environment, then no, it doesn't matter.

[AlexSem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else wonder about the possibility that morality is dependent on a purpose to life?

[/ QUOTE ]
This depends on whether morality is external or internal. If external, if morality is imposed on us by God, government, or society, then those imposing the rules have a responsibility to conform these to the purpose of the universe. If internal, if we look deeply inside ourselves to determine what is truly best for us, those around us, and our environment, then no, it doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has it occured to you that internal, external... There's more than 2 options?

For example a mix of the two?


----
As for reading philosophy books or those authors that take 5 minutes per page.

Has it occured to you folks that maybe philosophy books are BORING and NOT the ultimate source for knowledge? If you cant' paraphrase an idea, it's your fault, not the person asking [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

A lot of pointless talk in this thread being the direct result of book lovers claiming their book-knowledge superiority and engaging in arguments [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[amplify]

Alex,

In order to integrate a duality, you must first perceive one.