>>10934604Your second article does a good enough job explaining why you shouldn't talk about evolution as though it were purposeful:
>mentalistic (attributing the action of mind where there is none)And aside from that the exact reason we keep getting threads like this one every day is because of this shit way of conceptualizing evolution. Once you stop thinking about evolution in terms of purpose and start thinking about it in terms of whatever happened to emerge and propagate into the future it no longer seems mysterious for seemingly "bad designs" to exist in nature. Because they aren't "designs" at all, and there's no reason to expect problems to not exist in biological processes given there wasn't anyone acting through nature to try to make problem-free machines in the first place.
A consistently bad enough problem could be enough to cause an organism to die out, but that's completely different from the assumption any detrimental trait is an unexpected anomaly. It would be way less plausible for perfect organisms that never suffer or lack in any scenario imaginable to come into existence since it would require a much greater number of conspiratorially convenient inexplicable happenstances to add all that superfluous extreme protection from harm when structures and processes requiring infinitesimally less to emerge and persist would have sufficed.
Do you also talk about gravity's purpose? Or the purpose of humidity? These are garbage perspectives to approach natural phenomena with that take you in the opposite direction of understanding what's going on.
