I agree with that statement, dear hosepipe. Yet you know as well as I do that evolutionary theorists just EXPECT that man MUST be getting BETTER over time. Meaning: smarter, more "fit," etc. That means past (dead) generations before our own were less smart, less fit, etc., etc., than we who are presently living.
I mean, isn't evolution all about "progress" — while at the same time denying any purpose in nature? And yet: How can there be "progress," if there is no purpose, criterion, or standard to assess "progress" by in the first place?
No. The processes responsible for the instantiation of phenotypic diversity are not restricted to such qualification. What appears as phenotype in any progeny will be elements of the set of what's possible, nothing else.
"I mean, isn't evolution all about "progress" — while at the same time denying any purpose in nature?" And yet: How can there be "progress," if there is no purpose, criterion, or standard to assess "progress" by in the first place?
The only appropriate use of the word Progress in nature would be to describe something like trait appearence vs. time, or diversity of species vs time. The appearence of anything in particular would only be progress in a contrived subjective scheme used as a reference. Purpose is generally only found with reference to those same subjective schemes. Else, it simply refers to some physical functional attribute.
I think.... you just exposed most evolutionists as "progressives".. Funny HOW?... most posters on FR that support evolution(on "these" threads) almost never post to political threads.. If did they could be exposed still further as "progressives"..
I'm rather surprised by this question. You've been around these threads for years and could not possibly be ignorant of this topic. Evolution is change. It is not progress in any commonly used sense of the word.