Talk:Teleology

This page should be "teleological argument" instead of "teleology" which is related but not the same.
 * Okay, mcc, I will try to fix it. Tell me if I get it wrong. (Also, make sure you sign your name)-- Centimeter INCHES  13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A NOTE FROM AN EDUCATED FELLOW
Authors, please do not forget that Evolution may indeed be directional when one considers the effects of both constant and transient selection pressures. The application of a selection pressure of sufficient duration towards a population of organisms may result in a corresponding degree of directional effect, the product of which reeks of the *appearance* of teleology. Please split the hairs finer in the wiki page proper!

Some moderation needed.
It is just a myth that organism complexity can be reduced to genome complexity. Emergence shows that simple genetic material can cause the emergence of complex organs. Therefore arguments based on genome complexity cannot be used as arguments against increase in whole organism complexity. The claim that genome complexity has not changed is also spurious. Potatoes and to a lesser extent apes have more complex genomes than humans (remember that genome complexity is not identical to organism complexity, the human brain is still the most complex organ). Also, it is nonsense to claim that lack of intention implies randomness (altough a common nonsense that even Stephen Jay Gould suffered from). Modern research on evolution of gene activity regulators (so-called "junk DNA" actually regulates gene activity and are therefore not neutral or junk at all) under environmental stress proves that evolution is selective adaptation. While guided evolution is total bunk in most cases, exceptions can legitimately be made when beings capable of foresight are involved (artificial selection or self-guided evolution).109.58.239.86 (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg
 * Actually, it doesn't seem to be too clear if those are points raised by teleology or points used to refute teleology. Indeed, work needed. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are points that refute both teleology itself and overreactions against teleology. It is sober naturalist causalism as it would have been in the absence of a teleological enemy to hate.109.58.47.168 (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg
 * The complexity one is quite simplified and quite likely oversimplified. The actual argument is how much complexity you could possibly get out of the selection pressure available. Feel free to state it better - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just like poisons can have synergy effects, synergy effects that may show up even when no single poison reaches or exceeds the toxicity threshold it has in isolation, so can multiple in themselves neutral mutations have adaptionist synergy effects together. When such potentially synergetic mutations start taking over the population, selection starts affecting any mutation that can contribute to (or weaken) the synergy effect, meaning that evolution is more adaptionist and less random the more tissue interactive complexity (NOT to be confused with genome complexity) to shape emergents there is. That also explains rapid evolutionary adaptation to changed environments, as have been recently discovered.79.138.208.52 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

The next stage of human evolution
By definition we here now will be on 'the losing side.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)