The Goals Of Evolution
There remains a question unanswered, a tricky one: why? What is the use of these processes of evolution, of life itself? Is there any goal or purpose behind it? You could imagine that DNA doesn’t only describe who and what we are, and in addition defines a certain focus in the evolution of life, but even has some kind of evolutionary goal programmed in it, directly or as an inevitable consequence. AI has also a purpose and goal, so why not NI?
Before going into that, here some answers to the question of the goal of evolution I found on internet:
This lack of goal is also why evolutionary paths can lead to what we might consider “inefficiencies” or “quirks.” Evolution results in forms and functions that are good enough to survive and reproduce in their environment, but not perfectly designed. In short, evolution leads to a variety of life forms adapted to different niches, but it does so through undirected processes rather than purposeful goals.
If something has a goal inefficiencies or quirks are not to be expected? Over a period of 100 of millions of years? ‘Goal’ and ‘designed’ are seen as inextricably linked. I don’t subscribe that point of view. Can’t nature have a goal on its own? Why should something with a goal be perfect? I am not speaking about an almighty god. Why is nature not allowed to find its own revolutionary path if it has a goal, or at least a direction?
One more:
For instance, that single-celled organisms eventually gave rise to multicellular organisms might appear to exemplify directed movement towards so-called "higher" life-forms. But as Gould (1996) and others point out, there is a left-hand wall to complexity; by definition, the simplest possible organism can only become more complex or stay the same. In this sense, evolution is a "drunkards walk", wherein certain lineages inevitably attain unexplored novelty in form and function. By the same token, terms like "reverse evolution" and "devolution" are nonsensical; similar traits and gene sequences may recur at different moments in biological history, but this is still just evolution: change over time.
So, if I understand it well, the fact that DNA describes life in many forms and with almost numerous traits is a ‘drunkards walk’? The fact that certain molecule sequences produce all the proteins that living creatures need to live is just a ‘change over time’? That mutations happen (in none life threatening regions) of the DNA which can bring, at least based on the ‘survival of the fittest’, thousands of viable and favourable new traits to fill the niches of biospheres is something inevitable, even if there is completely no direction, law or principles incorporated? For instance if mutations wouldn’t lead to the production of new proteins, life on earth would have perished or be limited to one cell species. The way that codons (DNA triplets) are mapped to amino acids seems to be strongly optimised. There is no ‘left-hand-wall’ which could ever give that result.
A last one:
Evolution has no purpose; it simply happens. There is no reason to assume that evolution comes with some objective “improvement”. The only thing that is constantly improving is the adaptedness of individuals to their given environment. Because the environment changes, this “progress” always remains relative – progress relative to the adaptedness to an environment.
In case we want to metaphorically talk about a “goal” of evolution, then the goal is simply the copying success of genes. But that, too, does not happen in a strategically planned manner, for evolution is – metaphorically speaking again – “blind and indifferent.”
DNA evolving by random mutations to all kind of lifeforms like birds, dogs and humans just happens. This sounds to me like ‘a car just happens’. The only thing, according to this quote, that is constantly improving, is the adaptability of individuals to their given environment. How could a fish adapting to its environment end up on land? Did the environment change so much that our ‘apelike’ ancestor evolved to homo sapiens? Which changes did this? Apes and men still survive in the same conditions. Why should a process going in an certain direction and so having an inevitable (end)result, need a ‘strategically planned manner’? Some boundaries and some basic principles are good enough. Gravity is based on a law of nature, electromagnetism is based on a law of nature and also the forces within atoms. Together they have shaped the universe, earth and every particle on earth. So does that needed a ‘strategically planned manner’? If you say yes, than you are religious. If you say no to this and yes to a directional evolution, you are inconsequent. If you say that you need ‘strategically planned manners’ to give evolution some direction and, as a result of that, a more or less inevitable outcome, than you should also need those manners to accept that the universe works according to a limited number of general principles that result in an exact predictable outcome. But for some reason that is no issue.
Suggesting that the evolution of life could have some directions, some boundaries, some principles is, at least that seems so, blasphemy in the world of evolutionary scientists.
Back to NI: I EXT have given a possibility how Natural Intelligence could work. The evolution according to NI doesn’t works on the basis of a 100% random genetic variation but on the basis that per species, per limited group within a species or even on an individual level, some regions of the DNA are more susceptible (actively or passively) for variations and that this can be inherited so that it can become a part of the generations to come, especially if this concerns a trait that gives a (better) fit. I have also given a possibility how this could lead to a faster and a clear directional evolutionary process (not only based on ‘survival of the fittest’) and even to a revolutionary evolution because of a more or less fundamental change concerning this susceptibility. But, again, is it also possible that evolution can have a goal or even more goals? Maybe ‘goal’ is not the right word and is the outcome of the evolution of life somehow, between certain boundaries, inevitable.
‘Survival of the fittest’ leads to a better adaptation (by the way: is that not something inevitable?), NI makes that process faster and makes the chance of a successful independent evolution bigger. It could even be the only option to create a new family of species. And if you compare the evolutionary ‘tree’ of both, NI together with ET gives a way faster, better and more complete result than ET on its own will ever be able to achieve. So the inevitable result of evolution could be an as big as possible and an as variable as possible population of species. To reach this, all these different species will have to fit in and fill in every niche that our world offers. That asks for specialisation or even for super specialisation. And that implies that all kind of traits together give the optimum fit. This means complexity, see for instance all the mentioned traits you need to become the best and fastest tree climber or to walk upright. While in the beginning of the evolution is was enough just to be able to move a bit. So the inevitable outcome of evolution according to NI are as numerous as possible and as diverse as possible life forms, varying from one cell creatures to very complex creatures fitting is every niche, even the tinny ones, that by the way makes these life forms more and more vulnerable for even small changes. So the extinction rate could go up because of this, having a reducing effect.
Humankind has even reached such a complexity that it is capable to live in other niches then her own and survive there (thanks to cloth, fire, heating, cooling, refrigerators etc.). That implicates adaptation to external circumstances and so an active contribution to its own evolution. Mankind not only survives and thrives thanks to internal traits but also, and maybe even more, thanks to self-invented external ‘traits’.
By the way: there are all kinds of theories why men as only primate (assuming mankind is a primate) lost his or her body hair. Like a better dissipation of body heat. But why that wouldn’t work for other primates is a mystery for me. It is well accepted that the process of losing hair already started long before the journey North out of Africa started. Again: the start of this process could be just genetically with no obvious reason at all.
A short time ago I watched a documentary about deep sea fish and the really amazing and also beautiful creatures living in these deepwater areas. These animals look very different from any other life form on earth. That made me wonder how it is possible that there are so many different species adapted to so many different circumstances, often with each their own feeding habits, types of food, strongpoints and so on. On the basis of only the Evolution Theory you would expect much more resemblance between species, the sharing of proven favourable habits and traits, same objectives. If intelligence works for mankind of course it should work for almost all animals to make the better fit. But obviously and maybe even surprisingly that is not the reality and not the way it works. Or should I say: NI+ExT works?
If I make a comparison with cars again, the day to day competition between the different brands is to my opinion much stronger than between the different species. To say it in another way: nature is remarkable complementary. For every situation and every environment there is one well suited and adapted species and species are not often ‘fishing in the same pond’ in the same way with the same gear. There is for instance one species with an extraordinary long neck and there is one species with a long trunk. Opposite to products developed by men, which normally have huge overlaps. You could say that obviously evolution and time did their work, but will time and human intelligence (so not ‘coincidence’!) lead to less competition in time? No, to more competition! In economics we call that the ‘boom and bust cycle’. For some reason that cycle, that lead to more of the same instead to less of the same, appears not to exist in evolution or at least is not as a deciding rule.
Often the opinion is that the differences between the DNA’s of different species is remarkable small and this is seen as an evidence that evolution of life is a fact, but maybe it is the other way around: the differences are, at least where it matters (also proteins), remarkable big.
This opinion is also based upon the generally accepted theory that life started at one moment in time and at one place. So this one DNA, that ‘happened’ there and then, was, is and will be the starting point for every living creature in the past, in the present and in the future. Just one tree of life. The Excitatus Theory, stating that all basic traits of life were already incorporated in that DNA, makes the weight of this theory even heavier. This one and only starting point limits by definition the possibilities of the evolution of life. If there would have been more starting points in time and/or place the variations could have been much bigger. Maybe in the form of life based on other chemical elements.
If reaching an optimum or even maximum of different species in every possible biosphere is the end result of the evolution of life, than what does that mean? Without life the universe with all its stars, planets and other phenomena is useless and pointless. I could even put it more extreme: Without the universe there is no life and without life there is no universe. The first part is logic, but the second part may ask for some explanation: If nothing can ever (not in the past, not now, not in the future) experience or observe something, nor its effects, than this ‘something’ is nothing. At least there was, is and will never be any evidence that there is or was or will be something. The evolution of life has led to the situation that ever more living creatures experience the world in all its facets, the sun, the stars and so on, and their effects, dating from the past (even the lasting effects of the ‘big bang’) until today. So ever more universe becomes real and if it is to mankind, we are only just beginning.
Is that all, if we are talking about goals or inevitable outcomes? I don’t think so. There are some remarkable facts about the (r)evolution of life. One is that it contradicts or, better formulated, is supposed to contradict one of the most important laws of nature. And that is the second law of thermodynamics. This supposed contradiction is also known as the Schrödinger paradox. This law states that the total entropy (degree of chaos) in a system either increases or remains constant in any spontaneous process, if it is a closed system; it will never decrease. Say you throw a bottle made out of glass on the floor. The result will never by something that makes any sense, but there are billions of possible random divisions of the chippings. The entropy (the chaos) in a system can only decrease if energy is put into it from outside, resulting is a less chaotic situation. If you talk about the bottle, that means gluing it together again. A living creature is less chaotic than the materials needed to make this creature. To make a living creature, these materials have to be organized and combined in a very special and even unique way, which results in a very strong reduction of entropy. Energy and effort have to be brought in to make a living creature from materials. Energy can be derived from the sun and other sources. But where does this needed effort come from? The Evolution Theory points in this respect to ‘coincidences’ but this second law defines that coincidences will lead to a bigger chaos, a higher state of entropy. So this also indicates that NI, an organising feature, is a necessary part of the evolution of life. And of course this organizing feature is DNA.
A part of the second law of thermodynamics is also that conditions in systems in contact with each other will tend to become uniform: in that situation a warmer room will get colder and the colder room will become warmer. To avoid both processes (chaos instead of ordered materials in a species; and a lukewarm body in a lukewarm room instead of a warm body in a cold space) a source of energy as well as a source or form of intelligence or instruction are needed. In the absence of instruction or intelligence, it is not enough to put energy in.
So the fact is, that living creatures lower the state of entropy, organizing materials under the influence of energy put into the system. Besides that, they (mammals, birds) avoid an equilibrium between their body conditions and the outside world. To realize this the mentioned law demands intelligence or instructions. And both are indeed incorporated in DNA. This implies: DNA is the ‘intelligent’ organizing feature and the sun and maybe other sources brings in the needed energy. So the inevitable outcome of the evolution of life is to lower entropy. It goes against the second law of thermodynamics but it does not contradict it.
By the way: dinosaurs were cold-blooded, like reptiles today, their body temperature followed the temperature of the outside world. So their existence looked more like the closed system, the second law of thermodynamics is talking about, than the existence of mammals or birds. That they got extinct and mammals survived, and even took over, could be a confirmation that life goes against this law that dictates an constant or growing entropy.
That life lowers the level of entropy is a point of discussion. Some scientists say that life increases the entropy by burning oil and so on (what only humans do). But I think that is ‘making chaos’ on a much lower level. See also the following text.
Death undoes this all and brings back the chaos according to the second law of thermodynamics. So what is the use of it all? Well we see that the evolution slowly but surely has increased the complexity of living creatures and their variety, so also slowly but surely the level of organisation, structuring and information increases and so the level of entropy decreases. The means that evolution is not a random process that, ruled by coincidences, leads to ever more complex living creatures. I thinks this well accepted dogma is not correct. Not only evolution has an inevitable outcome but even death. The whole process of an ever increasing level of organizing and structuring materials is only possible by the sake of death: no death no evolution.
So the filling of the biosphere with the optimum or possibly even maximum possible variety of species in order to give the universe the possibility and a reason to exist, could be one goal or at least the inevitable outcome of evolution. The other outcome could be to organize and structure materials.
Starting from this point of view a lot of observations make sense. Why are there some many people on earth and is this amount still growing? Why are there so many ants and termites?
They not only organize and structure materials in their bodies but also in their environment! So they multiply this effect during their life and so contribute extra to this direction of the evolution of life. That makes them so successful and maybe that is even the reason nature contributes to their success. Look at your house and room, (almost) everything ordered! Yes there is something in our system that pushes us to organize! And we do benefit from that. If mankind will be able to colonize other planets, our efforts of organizing and structuring will be multiplied. Are we just randomly doing something or indeed is DNA pushing us, while we don’t suspect it, into that direction? Is that why we like to play with Lego or like to make Jigsaw puzzles? We are getting satisfaction by organizing random distributed elements making a complete picture or structure out of many loose pieces. And the more money and assets you have, the better you can play your role.
You could wonder what this has to do with NI, with directional evolution and revolutionary evolution. If you compare the (theoretical) build-up of species according to the Evolution Theory and that according to NI in combination with ET the last one is, as already illustrated, far more effective. De process of creating a new family of species followed by the creation of new species within this new family is much faster and more effective and the capability to fill in all the niches in the biosphere is according to the Evolution Theory alone only partly possible and still with a very low speed and effectiveness. NI + ET in opposite will find every niche there is.
You could wonder what this has to do with NI, with directional evolution and revolutionary evolution. If you compare the (theoretical) build-up of species according to the Evolution Theory and that according to NI in combination with ET the last one is, as already illustrated, far more effective. De process of creating a new family of species followed by the creation of new species within this new family is much faster and more effective and the capability to fill in all the niches in the biosphere is according to the Evolution Theory alone only partly possible and still with a very low speed and effectiveness. NI + ET in opposite will find every niche there is.
If talking about the complexity of a cell, the complexity of DNA and the genetical chemical processes taking place, the complexity of traits and the complexity of living creatures, the all accepted explanation is ‘large numbers’. If an event happens infinite times, like mutations of the DNA, coincidences will bring order, indeed just by coincidence. This seems so far to be the only way to explain life and the evolution of life without some kind of intelligence. I already talked about my doubts if it really could work that way. See my text about screwing billions of times materials together in the expectation that just by coincidence one time suddenly a Porsche will appear out of this randomly screwed and welded materials.
Making this document I came across an article with the title ‘_A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkey Theorem’_ in 2024 written by Stephen Woodcock and Jay Falletta.
The Infinite Monkeys Theorem has long-established the eventual certainty of the complete works of William Shakespeare being reproduced by a monkey randomly pressing keys on a typewriter. This only considers the infinite limit, with either an infinite number of monkeys and/or an infinite time period of monkey labour. The mentioned researchers considered not the Infinite but the Finite Monkeys Theorem and looked at the probability of a given string being typed by a finite number of monkeys within a finite time allocation consistent with estimates for the lifespan of our universe. They also calculated the expected number of keystrokes until a target string would first be produced. So they examined the situation when only a finite number of monkeys and only a finite time period are available. And then calculated the probabilities of particular phrases being typed by a given number of monkeys in a given time period.
The conclusion of the performed mathematical experiment is that the results clearly demonstrated that based on the given plausible estimates of the lifespan of the universe and the amount of possible monkey typists available, this still leaves huge orders of magnitude differences between the resources available and those required for non-trivial text generation.
By the way: there are more of these kinds of theories, that claim that if you do something without any intentions millions of time or billions of times, that by chance one time the results will not be something chaotic but something with a structure or even a meaning. But what is often forgotten in those theories, is that you first must instruct something or somebody to perform a certain action that many times, over and over again. Like the monkeys mentioned above. Giving this instruction and performing this action is giving a direction and not something happening without any intensions. And that is how the Evolution Theory looks at life.
One other note: if an infinitive number of monkeys type infinite times on a key board, you will not only get the complete works of Shakespeare but of all writers ever existed. So the theory, that if you do something trillions of times by coincidence, order will appear, doesn’t support the Evolution Theory but contradicts it. Because that would implicate that life didn’t start with one type of DNA at one moment in history (generally accepted), but with multiple types of DNA or even other life giving molecules over and over again.
If I may take the liberty to translate the Finite Monkeys Theorem to the evolution of life, this would implicate that the universe isn’t there long enough to explain the mentioned complexities on the basis of random actions or events. Of course there are more DNA-sequences than monkeys, but species are more complex than the complete works of Shakespeare and the result of the mathematical experiment was that it still left huge orders of magnitude differences to an ordered result.
So it is one or the other: or coincidences will lead to more origins of life or to no origin of life. That all these coincidences by coincidence lead to just one origin of life, is really too unlikely (unless you believe that this is no coincidence …….).
So in my opinion the mentioned processes of evolution and the mentioned outcome of it, are programmed in DNA and made possible by our habitat offering energy, materials, oxygen etc.
That is ‘all’. No reason the bring in a creator. We don’t do that if we are talking about DNA programming traits and we don’t do that if we are talking about the laws of physics. So also no reason to do that, if we are talking about the ‘laws of evolution’.
To conclude this chapter about the ‘goals’ of the evolution of life, let me go back to the 7(?) laws of nature and physics. What do these laws do? What is the result the law of gravity or of electromagnetism? Organizing material! The universe and our earth are the result of these laws: the universe is not a chaos, but organised in the form of milky ways, stars and planets, where even on some of them life can evolve. Without the laws of physics universe would be a chaos. So the theory that life is there to organize, is nothing but a expansion of the existing laws of physics. Nothing exotic or religious about it. Biology and physics are always considered as two separate sciences, but in the end they could be the two sides of the same coin.
