A problem I'm running into with Evolution

[John21]

If I accept the theory that evolution has no purpose or goal, and the conclude that I can hear because I have ears and I can see because I have eyes, instead of the opposite, I end up concluding that the theory of evolution states that function follows form.

Where I'm running into a problem is trying to reconcile survival into this framework:
Isn't survival a purpose or goal?
I can get around the idea of removing purpose, but I still have to say that survival is a function, but a function of what?
If function follows form - what could that form possibly be that survival becomes a function of?
I tried to conclude that survival is a function of life, but that seems to be semantics i.e. life is survival.

I have no problem describing life with a teleological argument, where form follows function, but when I try to put the very essence of life in the framework of a naturalist theory, it just doesn't seem to fit very well.

[Xhad]

Am I correct that you're trying to say is that you have trouble reconciling the idea that the universe can be plodding along without regard to any purpose, yet all organisms appear to be attempting to promote their survival?

If that's the case, consider this: there are mutations that hinder survival, or an organism's will to survive. The reason you don't see these is that organisms that don't want to/can't survive won't last, so you won't see them.

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]

I can get around the idea of removing purpose, but I still have to say that survival is a function, but a function of what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I follow you here, and I'd say that survival - the instinct to survive - is a function of a will to life, operating on some level, within living things.


[ QUOTE ]

If function follows form - what could that form possibly be that survival becomes a function of?

[/ QUOTE ]
The form - well I'd call that life: semantics, as you suggest.



[ QUOTE ]
I tried to conclude that survival is a function of life, but that seems to be semantics i.e. life is survival.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like this to a certain degree - I think it's more fair to say that survival certainly seems to be a part of life.


[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem describing life with a teleological argument, where form follows function, but when I try to put the very essence of life in the framework of a naturalist theory, it just doesn't seem to fit very well.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really agree with you, it's all very strangely put together, so to speak.

It seems as if we can describe nature with form following function up until (chronologically speaking) we come across life. Life, however, inherently changes things by the phenomena of a will to life. With regards to life: form still seems to follow function, though the function may be influenced in more complex ways.

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I correct that you're trying to say is that you have trouble reconciling the idea that the universe can be plodding along without regard to any purpose, yet all organisms appear to be attempting to promote their survival?

[/ QUOTE ]


With regards to the theory of evolution, I think that it's fair to say that form - in some cases - inherently alters function. (Maybe this could be more accurately stated that it appears this way, at least.)
Form can still follow function in the long-run (as in everything being a formation from the function that is nature), although they may each affect the other on various levels.

[John21]

I guess I should have posed it as an origin of life question. After thinking about it, it doesn't seem to fit within ToE's boundries.

So from an origin of life perspective: how could function follow form, when there was no form to start from? Or how could the function of survival be present when there was as yet no form to survive?

I'm just having a hard time seeing how an attribute (survival) could emerge without something to attribute its function to.

(I'll think of a better way to phrase it, this probably doesn't make any sense.)

[John21]

Okay, would a correct understanding of ToE be:

Replicators replicate = what we call life and the will to survive.

Would that definition fit the function follows form model?

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
So from an origin of life perspective: how could function follow form, when there was no form to start from?

[/ QUOTE ]
Function isn't reeaally following form I don't think - it's more like function is being altered a bit, pushed slightly in a different direction (when we're talking about life!).

[ QUOTE ]

Or how could the function of survival be present when there was as yet no form to survive?

[/ QUOTE ]
We don't really need to assume that the function of survival is present without life! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
I'm just having a hard time seeing how an attribute (survival) could emerge without something to attribute its function to.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are tons of things we don't have reasons for. We can guess and characterize the way things seem to appear, but that's about it. Science does a prety good job with pointing out evident consistencies. It's tough stuff to venture into, most people guess - and are dead-set against exploring their own guesses.


[ QUOTE ]
(I'll think of a better way to phrase it, this probably doesn't make any sense.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you express your thoughts well - but then again, who knows if I am interpreting correctly [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[prosellis]

An important part of evolution is that form continuosly changes. Every time that a form changes the function does not change (though at times it does). More often, form changes to meet shortcomings in the fulfillment of function.
Darwin's observations of the variations of form in certain animals based on their habitat suggested that their form had changed because they were unable to perform certain functions to the level necessary for their survival.

I guess what I'm saying is that form follows function. As function becomes inadequate, form changes.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
More often, form changes to meet shortcomings in the fulfillment of function.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you cannot impute a teleological intent to be the cause of the change. That is a misunderstanding of evolution.

[Praxis101]

Prosellis,

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More often, form changes to meet shortcomings in the fulfillment of function.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you cannot impute a teleological intent to be the cause of the change. That is a misunderstanding of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your whole characterization for a big-picture ain't too bad, though.