Yes, I believe that is true. But evolution is not just a matter of random genetic mutations coincidentally producing the right traits for a given environment. It also involves natural selection acting on variation, and an interplay between the plant and its environment, where the plant exhibits evolved defense mechanisms in response to environmental challenges. This reflects the concept of teleonomy—an apparent directionality or purpose in biological processes. At the very least, such interplay brings us closer to the idea of “apparent” intent and function, without implying conscious or deliberate purpose.And if there was actual conscious intent, epigentics would play for and not against this very controversial and highly speculative statement.
A method for “what” to work?
I don’t see the problem. If someone claims they have a method that can produce knowledge, then it is reasonable to expect them to demonstrate their claim is true by using this method to produce knowledge. You disagree?
IOW, math and logic are subsumed within the scientific method. That is exactly what I wrote.
You are again begging the question, by assuming that moral positions are objective truths. Like many others who have spent time thinking about this issue, I don’t consider “Murder is wrong” to be knowledge about the world that we have discovered. Rather, it is just a rule we made up. It’s a good rule, don’t get me wrong. I like that rule. But a rule is all it is.
You seem to think the scientific method does not use human perception. You are wrong about that.
But how do we know “pain is real”? I would suggest it is thru the scientific method. We know we have a particular subjective experience in response to a number of stimuli. Other people report the same experience. In addition, non-human animals exhibit behavior that is consistent with how we would expect them to if they also had this subjective experience. All of these empirical observations support the hypothesis “Pain is real.”
It would be a mistake to think that the term “science” only refers to rigorous experiments published in peer-reviewed journal. It is, rather, a generalized approach to understanding the world, and we are using it all the time.
This would likewise appear to be an unsubstantiated assertion.
[/quote]
I’m still stuck on “unintentional purpose”. 
I see a lot of comments along the same lines. If the “beginning to trickle in”, as we have been told by IDC’s for many years, then there ought to be something substantial to show for it. Instead we have vague claims that dissolve under light scrutiny.
That is no longer entirely true, as there are now mathematical proofs being verified by computers in a sort of numerical experiment. This is usually employed to check for the existence of counterexamples far more quickly than any human could.
Certainly no experiment approved by the IRB!
But I think it it also wrong. There have been unethical experiments (atrocities that I don’t think I need to explain) that are universally condemned as immoral. While that was not the purpose of those experiments, they answered the moral question nonetheless.
OR, since @Faizal_Ali said it better, those experiment tested the moral rule, and confirmed that it is a good rule.
Purposeless, yes, but natural selection is not blind to the environment. The claim is common in ID, and amounts to to bringing rhetoric to a science-fight. It’s the wrong tool for answering the question.
Here you confuse evolution with “goal-directed behavior and functional organization”. What do you imagine you’re talking about?
Here you seem to confuse our current knowledge of the world with the world itself. What suggests the incompleteness of “the purely mechanistic view”, whatever you mean by that?
But not in evolution, unless natural selection produces teleonomy. And if so, isn’t that just saying that this “third wave” is compatible with standard evolutionary biology?
A method that can produce reliable knowledge of the origin of the universe and life, of the workings of consciousness, and of the nature of evolution. All the things you’ve been claiming that “materialistic science” can’t do. What can, then?
I was challenging Faizal’s assertion that ‘only science can produce knowledge of the world,’ not that non-empirical methods are incapable of making claims that can be empirically validated
It is supposed to be grounded in logic,reasoning, rigor, analysis, and facts, which would make them reliable.
That’s a link to an abstract, and the abstract is for a review paper, and MDPI is frequently considered a predatory publisher. You will note that claims made in abstracts are unsupported by reference to the primary literature, though that support may be cited in the paper itself. Have you looked at the paper? Have you looked at the references cited in support of the claim? It might seem obvious to you, but how do animals move in order to evade parasites and pathogens, for example? Some abstract you found in a search is at best a first step.
I can’t confirm for epigenetic in general, but phenotypic plasticity does appear to be commoner in plants - or at least there were more known examples in 2006 when I did a search during my degree.
Yes we do - especially probability and physics calculations.
This is very interesting. Could you say a bit more about it, maybe in a new thread if that is appropriate?
I think again that this is a circular argument.
I see it as math and logic being the foundation and science standing atop, not subsumed. What do you think about this notion?
They are not objective truths, but moral ones.
Nope, entirely from my own experience of it.
Agree to agree!
I am not a scientist.
Over the years, I’ve read widely on many scientific topics. From this self-directed study, I’ve formed some conclusions—right or wrong—that I’d like to share. I’m not claiming to be an expert, just offering my perspective based on what I’ve learned.
It seems you’re not quite understanding me, and that’s getting in the way of my point. I’m not promoting any specific ideology, nor am I trying to undermine science or insult scientists. Frankly, I’m too undisciplined to be a scientist myself.
My main point is that there are still major unresolved issues in science, even though some are already confidently concluding that we live in a certain kind of world.
I am not a creationist.
My goal isn’t to push a fixed agenda, but to explore alternative ways of thinking and challenge widely held assumptions.
I believe counterarguments are essential for intellectual progress, even in science. Healthy debate and diverse perspectives help us think critically and prevent science from becoming too rigid.
Science is incredibly powerful, but it doesn’t have all the answers. Some aspects of the human experience—like consciousness and life itself—may not be fully explained by science alone. Sometimes, alternative approaches can offer insights that science might miss.
Not really, no. I think everyone would fine with saying particular organs and structures are “for” the functions they perform in the apparent, not intentional, sense of the word. Darwin himself routinely used the word purpose when describing what functions some organ or structure evolved for. But it was just clear he used the word in a functional, not intentional sense.
That statement just reveals you’re not actually comfortable accepting the apparent versus actual distinction. You switch from the apparent to the actual here when you contrast evolution as natural selection being purely blind and purposeless, by saying teleonomy show goal-directed behavior.
Apparent means looks-as-if-but-isn’t-actually purposeful, and therefore does not really contradict the purely blind and actually purposeless-in-the-sense-of-unintentional mechanisms.
This canard is a fairly pervasive feature of creationist misrepresentation of evolution.
“The standard model” also includes genetic drift, recombination, chromosomal organisation, and reproductive isolation.
Teleonomy only admits the appearance of purposefulness and of goal-directedness – so there is no dichotomy.
Not within teleonomy, as defined, we’re not.
The model never was simple, and is getting more complex even without the claims of the Third Way. It is just doing so based upon evidence, not on the half-baked claims of an ESL teacher on a creationist blog.
Given that the “complexity” you are trumpeting is entirely speculative – so is this suggestion.
No, and I did not say that.
I had in fact already made a different argument why your first reference did not support your contention – that it was explicitly framed in its title as being about teleonomy – the mere appearance of purposefulness and of goal-directedness, rather than its actuality.
Yes, I could track down that book, and try to carefully parse every passage in it, for evidence that the authors have slipped beyond teleonomy and the mere appearance of purposefulness and of goal-directedness, into outright teleology and actual purposefulness and of goal-directedness. But the lack of empirical support for the Third Way’s view, disinclines me to bother:
Yes, I am showing a strong predisposition towards empiricism, and empirical ‘ways of knowing’, such as science.
However nobody has demonstrated a non-empirical ‘way of knowing’ that demonstrates an ability to generate reliable knowledge about our universe (mathematics and logic are reliable, but only generate knowledge about abstractions). Certainly you have failed to make such a demonstration.
Don’t doubt it. I was questioning the “because” part. Then again, I would suspect that most of these examples of phenotypic plasticity refer to gross, highly visible morphology. Perhaps animal plasticity tends to be more subtle and thus more easily overlooked. Just a hypothesis.
Please mention one or two of these alternative approaches.
Without validation those would seem to be inadequate to ensure reliability.
So it seems to me that Faisal was at least close to the truth. “Non-empirical” methods must be empirically rested for reliability and if they fail that test then their unreliability would be established. And that involves no circularity at all.
Here is the paper:
I have encountered on a few occasions in my reading this notion that plants were more susceptible to epigenetic changes. I scoured the net to find these references, but after two days this is what I was only able to find. I have limited search capacity and I am limited in my access to primary literature, because most that I have consulted are behind paywals. If plants are no more susceptible to epigenetic change, then this would not considerably impact the fact that epigenetic factor may be another way for organisms to adpapt to environmental changes, making also slightly more possible the matter of “apparent” intent and purpose in evolution.
This is entirely unsubstantiated and cannot be supported, as it’s just my personal view, which doesn’t hold scientific weight.
I also struggle with the idea of “unintentional purpose.” I think the appearance of purpose in evolution comes partly from the complexity of the process, which can give the impression of intent, even though there isn’t any actual purpose behind it. The appearance of goal-directedness in either the results or the process leading to those results? I think that the latter opens up possiblilities while the former is just that, an illusion of purpose.
I cannot deny this possibility; that it could be a mere blip on the radar screen and nothing more. However, there ares calls for yet another review of evolutionary theory that would add even more complexity to the process, thereby implying that there is maybe more than randomness and natural selection at play.
Thank you, didn’t know that—noted!
Genetics, horizontal gene transfer (HGT), symbiosis, dynamic genomes, natural genetic engineering, evo-devo, and niche construction are all growing fields in evolutionary biology. They’re adding new layers of complexity to our understanding of evolution and challenging traditional theories, offering more dynamic models that go beyond just natural selection.
I think a Nobel Prize would be in reach if I had the answer to that! But let me ask a rhetorical question instead: Can science really explore the subjective side of life, consciousness, and reality? While science is great at studying things we can measure, it struggles with the personal experiences and deeper aspects of reality that can’t be easily observed.
If “purpose” is a by-product of natural selection, then there’s no reason why it wouldn’t be compatible with standard evolutionary biology. Teleonomy could either be a result of natural selection or an additional factor in the evolutionary process, and both possibilities align with traditional evolutionary theory. What wouldn’t be compatible is teleology, the idea that evolution is driven by an inherent, intentional purpose or design.