As I have now got to the end (again), the next most pressing reply I had in mind over the last ten pages worth of stuff is that while some might argue that "the purpose of DNA is to replicate", or similar, I would say that there's no 'purpose' to it at all, merely consequences to an original or intermediate state. DNA that has gotten itself into the position of being the template for a living creature has successfully navigated its way through the phase-space of all possible DNA lineages up until that point, but there's no more intent to it than there is any intent for any dynamic process.
And no currently extant DNA really has more 'promise' to continue its lineage than any other, intrinsically. (Although DNA that has mutated to loose its inherent reproducibility requires cloning/cuttings taken/some other method of perpetuating, DNA that maintains reproducibility may easily fall down by not being delivered to/visited-by a suitable mating set of genes or otherwise fulfilling the requirement for parthenogenesis, in the grand scheme of things.) If one wishes, think how many strands of human DNA inhabit the overwhelming number of cells of the human that are not gametes or gamete-producers. The DNA in the rest of the body may help form the conveyance and decision-making elements of the breeding-machine, but themselves could be stripped of most of their individual reproductive and multiplicative powers to no overall effect of the machine-as-a-whole. And no muscle cell ever, individually ever had intention to contract "so as to perform a manoeuvre that would lead to the perpetuation of the body's lineage, never mind the DNA within it, which is (on the whole) receiving molecular signals/prompts and producing molecular answers to problems that lie beyond any degree of 'understanding' that it might have about its cytoplasmic environment or beyond.
In my eyes, the wonder of the universe is not that purposes are aimed at, pursued and attained, but that so many purposeless processes produce such exquisitely patterned coincidental consequences that beget yet still more momentary and purposeless patterns. And I apologise for any unintentional alliteration you may perceive in that statement.
There are no purposes at all. Even people follow no 'purpose', and are merely direct products of their current environment, past experience and basic corporeal make-up. The complex system of neural interactions which 'exhibit' consciousness may, through internal feedback loops, identify intangibles and label them as 'purpose', but is as much an illusion as conscious decision-making is itself (as experimentation has shown).
For similar reasons as ascribing anthropomorphic emotions, intentions, etc to non-human creatures (or even non-living systems) is misleading, ultimately while emotions and intentions and purposes can be named as useful 'shortcuts' and labels when describing the flux of behaviour-controlling processes within a human themselves, they are still abstractions and mere shadows of whatever underlying complexity actually dictates the behaviour that arises.
Extending these abstractions to anything else in the universe (e.g. "the stars outer layers expand outwards in order to equalise the increased pressure from the renewed internal nuclear reactions") has decreasing merit, as it departs from being even a useful shortcut explanation (or, rather, allows suitably susceptible consciousnesses to muddy their or others' understanding of the true nature of the universe) and it is unfortunate enough that I must resort to apparent anthropomorphism of brain functions themselves in order to attempt to convey an understandable analogy of what I actually mean.
But I appreciate that the above is probably a mouthful, and apologise.
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 393516 times)