Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.bio,net.origins,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: the Goal of evolution
Message-ID: <1438@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-May-86 19:17:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1438
Posted: Fri May  9 19:17:42 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 04:17:02 EDT
References: <487@bcsaic.UUCP> <1002@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 50
Xref: linus net.bio:307 net.origins:3060 net.philosophy:4884

In article <267@valid.UUCP> pete@valid.UUCP writes:
>> In article <318@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP writes:
>> >>>[...] An entity
>> >>>must have understanding to have goals.  Evolution has no understanding,
>> >>>and hence is a goal-less process.
>> 
>> Let me change the semantics here a bit.  "Evolution" per se has no goals;
>> but I think it makes sense to say that the species which are evolving  do
>> have a goal: to survive.  (And the individuals of the species have the more
>> complex goal of perpetuating their genes.)
>> 
>> Frank Adams
>
>I wish to disagree with this statement.  Survival is not a goal, it is a
>process.  DNA that survives gives rise to DNA that is good at surviving.
>Species that survive and perpetuate their genes give rise to species that
>are good at surviving and perpetuating their genes.  Their is no "goal".
>When conditions change such that a certain survival process does not work,
>species depending on that process die out.  Species that use a survival
>process that works under both set of conditions survive.  This is called
>"natural selection" and is the basis of evolution.

Being a goal and being a process are not incompatible.  You have presented a
fine argument that survival is a process.  But no one has disputed this.
The question is, is it also a goal?

This is as much a semantic question as anything.  There are important
similarities between ordinary human goals and the evolutionary "goal" to
survive; there are also important differences.  The question is, are the
similarities enough to justify the extension of the terminology to this
domain?  Or, more or less equivalently, what is the best way of talking
about the evolutionary process in contexts where functionality is at issue,
rather than details of natural selection?

The chief advantage of using this terminology in this context is that it is
by far the most concise way of expressing these ideas.  The chief
disadvantage is that it is subject to misunderstanding by those who do not
understand the subject.  I tend to feel that the argument in favor is
stronger, at least in some contexts.  I might feel differently if I spent
more time arguing with creationists.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

P.S. I don't want to spend time arguing with creationists.  If I had noticed
that net.origins was in the newsgroups line on my original follow-up, I
would have removed it.  My comments were directed primarily to the
net.philosophy audience.  If you haven't yet agreed about whether evolution
happens, a discussion about whether it can be regarded as goal-oriented is
pointless and misleading.