Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Swa]

[video=youtube;MH-Olf06lq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH-Olf06lq8[/video]

Also it's estimated that up to ~10% of the human genome consist of ERV's in what's known as "junk" DNA. Junk DNA has been found to have a purpose and so it's conceivable and indeed proposed by some that not all ERV's are ERV's but are in fact ordinary functional DNA mistaken for ERV's.

 

[rwenzori]

Doesn't really matter which it is. Both are non-empirical and you claim it to be empirical science.

Whatever metaphysical-linguistic constructs you put together are just fluff unless based upon kickable reality. They "shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."

That's Ruse's statement so I wouldn't know what assumptions HE'S referring to.

So you make a post, consisting only of Ruse's quote, to counter what has been posted prior, and yet you have no clue as to what he is talking of. Nice.

Why not use your own brain, assuming Bebeh Jesus gave you one, and state assumptions of both points of view simply and in your own words ( so we can see if you understand anything at all ).

 

[Techne]

You mean like this for instance: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120503194213.htm
3 generations is not a permanent change and so does not cause evolution. If epigenetics governs the expression of genes and does not change them then it's quite conceivable that any epigenetic changes may be undone in due time by the genome that ultimately overrules the epigenome.

I think it is a bit more complex than that. Epigenomic changes may result in induced genomic changes. A simple example would be demethylation (epigenetic change) of the cytosine demaninase gene, making it more active/transcribed more. The protein can result in the induction of mutations (your immune system uses it to generate a variety of antibodies). So, in that manner, the epigenome can play a role in controlling mutations rates.

Change of alleles is evolution. That rules out epigenetics for the time being. Ancestry is simply ancestry. By itself it does not change anything and does not result in evolution. For evolution to happen alleles need to change and not simply be passed on between generations.

What exactly a gene is still a very hot topic for debate and this applies to the concept of allele as well. There are good arguments that alleles are not only genetic elements but a combination of epigenetic and genetic elements. A simple example would be where two twins have exactly the same genetic make-up (as in sequence of ACGT) but the the genes function very differently due to different epigenetic changes and it may be passed on to the next generation ("sins of the fathers" style if you want ). So, while they have the same sequence of DNA, they have different alleles due to the difference in epigenetic changes. This just is an example of evolution.

ERVs are also not the smoking gun that proves evolution.

It doesn't "prove" evolution". It is just very good evidence that humans and chimpanzees (and other primates) had a common ancestor. It is pretty good evidence.

That's a strawman. The example I gave of plants, fish, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals appearing seemingly from nowhere are not just small undocumented parts of a puzzle. There isn't any documentation of them AT ALL. These are entire lines of descent for all the major kingdoms and phyla that are missing yet numerous fossils of them and even of single species exist. Face the simple fact here, if it was just a matter of an incomplete fossil record then it happened not to select the most important parts of the puzzle against all odds.

It case you still don't get it imagine buying a ticket for every combination of lotto numbers except for one and then still ending up losing. The chance of a fossil record appearing the way it does through chance fossilisation events if gradual evolution took place is even less than that. So against chance where the odds were enormously in favour of the theory this time it still managed to miss capturing the evidence...

The point of my analogy is just to demonstrate that gaps in the fossil record won't get you to theism and are not good arguments against evolution. They are just gaps, gaps in our ignorance and no theologically significant conclusions can be drawn from it.

I am just curious, why do you support Intelligent Design when it is probably the worst argument for theism and actually just an argument (at best) for some kind of deistic machinist that tweaks a few knobs or genes here and there?

 

[rwenzori]

See here for some of the popular assumptions http://www.stevemcintosh.com/Evolut...Metaphysics-for-an-Evolutionary-Worldview.php

What a lot of twaddle. And lies. Apart from the first few general ones Stevie himself agrees with.

2 out of 10 - could do better.

 

[cyghost]

I am just curious, why do you support Intelligent Design

Why did you support ID at the time, may lead you to the answer you seek. Make no mistake, I applaud what you are doing in this thread but that one ain't rocket science.

 

[Techne]

Also it's estimated that up to ~10% of the human genome consist of ERV's in what's known as "junk" DNA. Junk DNA has been found to have a purpose and so it's conceivable and indeed proposed by some that not all ERV's are ERV's but are in fact ordinary functional DNA mistaken for ERV's.

Re the video. It is true that ERV are not inserted randomly and it is true that retroviruses can infect different species. None of this take away the fact that the pattern in which the ERVs are shared is best explained by common ancestry.

The links in this thread may help explain it.

 

[Swa]

Post Flood event? Seriously?

Sorry guys this thread has just jumped the shark, the stupid is strong in this one.

NCSE takes the nonsense apart

Funny how a bunch of experts can't agree with each other...

Whatever metaphysical-linguistic constructs you put together are just fluff unless based upon kickable reality. They "shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. You're the one who made a metaphysical claim, or a philosophical one. The two are so close to each other - actually one is a subset of the other. So you're saying your own constructs are fluff.

So you make a post, consisting only of Ruse's quote, to counter what has been posted prior, and yet you have no clue as to what he is talking of. Nice.

/snip

Seriously man, you're missing the whole point. Post #49 was related to #47. I gave you a link which you seemingly ignored. I don't know which ones Ruse refers to and it doesn't matter. He's an expert on the subject that actually listens to what the other side has to say but hey, I guess you would rather cling to drivel from people like Dawkins.

PS: Ok I see you didn't ignore it but might as well have.

 

[alloytoo]

Funny how a bunch of experts can't agree with each other...

Oh please pray show me the reputable experts advocating a global flood event.

 

[rwenzori]

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. You're the one who made a metaphysical claim, or a philosophical one. The two are so close to each other - actually one is a subset of the other. So you're saying your own constructs are fluff.

Kindly read the quotes from Carnap at #66. Would you not agree with what he says? If not, why not?

My claim, while possibly philosophical, is physical, not metaphysical. What are "my" constructs?

Seriously man, you're missing the whole point. Post #49 was related to #47. I gave you a link which you seemingly ignored. I don't know which ones Ruse refers to and it doesn't matter. He's an expert on the subject that actually listens to what the other side has to say but hey, I guess you would rather cling to drivel from people like Dawkins.

PS: Ok I see you didn't ignore it but might as well have.

The fact remains that you posted a quote without a tincture of understanding.

If you wish me to massacre Stevie's article in more detail, maybe I will. Crap is crap.

 

[Swa]

It doesn't "prove" evolution". It is just very good evidence that humans and chimpanzees (and other primates) had a common ancestor. It is pretty good evidence.

It's not good evidence at all. As per the video ERV's have specific or even very specific insertion points. It's for this reason they are being extensively studied for gene therapy. ERV's infect multiple species. Humans have ~100k of ERV's. Chimps likely as well. Based on the HIV experiment providing about 1000 insertion points we'll expect to find a lot of them in the same spots. It's not evidence because statistically we have to find them there.

Interesting articles but doesn't address the real problems. Firstly the claim that ERV's are not functional code is dubious. Junk DNA is also claimed not to have functional code yet recently more and more geneticists have spoken up against this. The relationship is very complicated where non-functional genes have been found to support other functional ones. Removing some of these genes also doesn't have an effect unless other genes are removed too so there appears to be a complicated mechanism of redundancy. Simply put too little is known about junk DNA and ERV's to draw the premature conclusion they are not functional genes.

Secondly the claim that evolution predicts ERV's in lines of descent. It doesn't. Genetics and ERV's actually changed lines of descent so using it as an argument is circulatory. For example the cow is genetically more compatible with the dolphin than one of its fossil relatives the horse. Interestingly evolution didn't predict the fossil record either but adapted to it.

Now here is a problem: A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans
Iow we don't share an ERV with our closest relative according to genetics but they share it with other more distant relatives.

The point of my analogy is just to demonstrate that gaps in the fossil record won't get you to theism and are not good arguments against evolution. They are just gaps, gaps in our ignorance and no theologically significant conclusions can be drawn from it.

It's a bad analogy because they are not just gaps due to our ignorance. I don't think ignorance actually applies here as it implies not trying to understand. The "incompleteness" of the fossil record is another one of those controversies in evolution. Not everyone agrees and several have stated it's actually complete because statistically if we have many fossils of phyla and even multiple from a single species then gradualism should have resulted in fossilisation of their lineages as well. It's strong evidence that gradualism didn't happen.

I am just curious, why do you support Intelligent Design when it is probably the worst argument for theism and actually just an argument (at best) for some kind of deistic machinist that tweaks a few knobs or genes here and there?

I don't. As I said previously ID and evolution are both bad science as they interpret the evidence from an a priori assumption - evolution happened due to gradual natural processes, ID says randomness can't account for all structures. ID actually doesn't discount evolution so it's nothing but an attempt for theistic evolution to wiggle its way into classrooms and churches.

Creationism (of life) can only tell us that there's a creator. Aliens can't be ruled out so we have to look at history and philosophy to tell us the identity and nature of the Creator. We do that anyway without creationism or science. I don't know why people on both sides have to misrepresent it as a battle between science and religion when evolution can't disprove God and creation can't prove God.

The funny thing is this, and I'll leave you to ponder over it. Evolution happens just enough not to rule it out but not enough to rule out creation. All the evidence that fits into an evolution paradigm can also fit into a creation paradigm. Dating methods arrange fossils in a nice chronological order from simple to more complex but isn't reliable enough to rule out an overlap or to even prove an old earth. It's like if creation is true then everything is created with enough uncertainty to accommodate every belief.

 

[Techne]

Kindly read the quotes from Carnap at #66. Would you not agree with what he says? If not, why not?

My claim, while possibly philosophical, is physical, not metaphysical. What are "my" constructs?

Let's see:
Philosophy and Logical Syntax (1935): Chap. "The Rejection of Metaphysics"

Carnap didn't like metaphysics, more specifically, he rejects any philosophical theses that "are deprived of empirical content". Or, to put it differently, he rejects any assertion of the Reality of the physical world that is deprived of empirical content.

For example, this applies to "philosophical questions of Reality, e.g. the Reality of other minds, the Reality of the given, the Reality of universals, the Reality of qualities, the Reality of relations, the Reality of numbers, etc.".

He continues:
"If any philosophical thesis answering any of these questions positively or negatively is added to the system of scientific hypotheses, this system will not in the least become more effective; we shall not be able to make any further prediction as to future experiences. Thus all these philosophical theses are deprived of empirical content, of theoretical sense; they are pseudo-theses."

So any metaphysics is just a pseudo-thesis. He would rather like to promote "Logical Analysis" as the only proper task of Philosophy. What is "Logical Analysis"?

Carnap agrees with Hume that any abstract reasoning that does not concern itself with quantity or number or any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence should be discarded.

Carnap writes:
"We agree with this view of Hume, which says - translated into our terminology - that only the propositions of mathematics and empirical science have sense, and that all other propositions are without sense."

But old Carnap then quickly runs into a bit of a problem, a reductio ad absurdum if you want.

His own theses, that of "Logical Analysis" is neither mathematical nor empirical. It isn't verifiable. It turns out to be a metaphysical thesis itself (according to his view of metaphysics anyway). Wittgenstein's answer of "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" isn't the answer for Carnap, but he doesn't provide any answer to the objection that his own theses turns out to be without sense.

You appear to be in the same boat. You make the assertion that there is no purpose. It is a philosophical thesis that is "deprived of empirical content". It is a philosophical answer to the Reality of the given. There is no scientific hypothesis about purpose/teleology. Your assertion is a philosophical thesis answering the question of purpose negatively and is added to the system of scientific hypotheses. Carnap would have laughed at you and called it a pseudo-thesis. Irony at its best.

Yet, here you are, using Carnap's self-refuting logical positivism to support your own self-refuting views which would have been rejected by Carnap himself anyway. You must think two wrongs make a right, or two self-refuting views turn into a logical view.

Next time you claim "there is no purpose" or "reality just is" and try to use Carnap to argue against metaphysics, read what he actually wrote and understand why your claims about reality does not mix with Carnap anyway.

If there is at least one use of metaphysics, it is there to point out the silly metaphysics of others.

 

[rwenzori]

You appear to be in the same boat. You make the assertion that there is no purpose. It is a philosophical thesis that is "deprived of empirical content". It is a philosophical answer to the Reality of the given. There is no scientific hypothesis about purpose/teleology. Your assertion is a philosophical thesis answering the question of purpose negatively and is added to the system of scientific hypotheses. Carnap would have laughed at you and called it a pseudo-thesis. Irony at its best...

Next time you claim "there is no purpose" or "reality just is" and try to use Carnap to argue against metaphysics, read what he actually wrote and understand why your claims about reality does not mix with Carnap anyway.

If there is at least one use of metaphysics, it is there to point out the silly metaphysics of others.

I don't have time to answer fully, but you miss the boat as usual.

There is nothing I have come across that gives any empirical evidence of purpose ( "purpose", not your Aristotelian "ends" ), or that cannot be adequately explained without introducing "purpose". If you would like to provide some such evidence - convincing please - then I might have to re-evaluate that view.

And just because I quote certain parts of what Carnap says does not mean I worship his whole kitten kaboodle.

 

[Swa]

Oh please pray show me the reputable experts advocating a global flood event.

I was talking about the disease state but obviously you missed that and jumped to the flood part.

Kindly read the quotes from Carnap at #66. Would you not agree with what he says? If not, why not?

My claim, while possibly philosophical, is physical, not metaphysical. What are "my" constructs?

Carnap talks a bunch of gibberish. Your claim is that of purposelessness. You do not have an empirical experiment to verify that. Without a definition you can't even know what it is you are testing.

I suppose you could define it as something that wasn't intentionally created to perform a task. Still you have a problem. Imagine seeing a stream of water flowing from a hole in a pond. This might be a natural accident but you wouldn't know until you see someone filling their cup with it. You can conclude that this constitutes a purpose but you would be wrong. They could simply be taking advantage of a natural occurrence so they attributed their own use to it. The only way to conclude if it's there for a purpose as per the definition would be to witness how it came to be.

So what will your empirical experiment for life having no purpose entail?

The fact remains that you posted a quote without a tincture of understanding.

If you wish me to massacre Stevie's article in more detail, maybe I will. Crap is crap.

No I posted a quote from somebody with the same position as mine. I do not know the details of it as I'm not a freakin' mind reader but I don't need to either as he clearly stated his main position. That does not imply not having an understanding.

If you want to rubbish the article you are free to do so but I provided it nonetheless. You will rubbish anything that doesn't agree with your position so go and read Dawkins and stay away from enlightened people that can actually teach you something.

 

[Techne]

It's not good evidence at all. As per the video ERV's have specific or even very specific insertion points. It's for this reason they are being extensively studied for gene therapy. ERV's infect multiple species. Humans have ~100k of ERV's. Chimps likely as well. Based on the HIV experiment providing about 1000 insertion points we'll expect to find a lot of them in the same spots. It's not evidence because statistically we have to find them there.

Interesting articles but doesn't address the real problems. Firstly the claim that ERV's are not functional code is dubious. Junk DNA is also claimed not to have functional code yet recently more and more geneticists have spoken up against this. The relationship is very complicated where non-functional genes have been found to support other functional ones. Removing some of these genes also doesn't have an effect unless other genes are removed too so there appears to be a complicated mechanism of redundancy. Simply put too little is known about junk DNA and ERV's to draw the premature conclusion they are not functional genes.

About "junk DNA. It should be clear that when something is labeled as “junk DNA” it simply does not imply that it is actually functionless junk. At best the term "junk DNA" merely applies to DNA that is a provisionally labeled for sequences of DNA for which no function has been identified. To jump from this to the claim that it is actually functionless amounts to an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy.

The fact that many ERVs have crucial regulatory functions is explained by co-option.

Re the statement above site-specific insertions. This does not explain why the shared ERVs fit into a nested hierarchy, see the figures in the thread about ERVs. I would be glad if we could continue discussions about it in that thread.

Secondly the claim that evolution predicts ERV's in lines of descent. It doesn't. Genetics and ERV's actually changed lines of descent so using it as an argument is circulatory. For example the cow is genetically more compatible with the dolphin than one of its fossil relatives the horse. Interestingly evolution didn't predict the fossil record either but adapted to it.

There are many other interesting findings as well e.g. Turtles More Closely Related to Birds Than Lizards and Snakes, Genetic Evidence Shows. This just means the data is updated, we are less ignorant, our previous views where incorrect.

Now here is a problem: A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans
Iow we don't share an ERV with our closest relative according to genetics but they share it with other more distant relatives.

Check out this article, it explains the biological susceptibility issue.

Kaiser SM, Malik HS, Emerman M. Restriction of an extinct retrovirus by the human TRIM5alpha antiviral protein. Science. 2007 Jun 22;316(5832):1756-8.

The research show that the human, chimpanzee and Sooty mangabeys’ TRIM5alpha (tripartite motif-containing 5 alpha) gene is able to restrict an MLV/CERV1 chimeric virus. It was also found that the R332Q mutation in human TRIM5alpha improved the ability of human TRIM5alpha to restrict the HIV-1 virus. The authors suggested that the R332 TRIM5alpha was present in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees and that the R332Q mutation was fixed in our common ancestor, or that the human and chimp lineages independently fixed R332 after the species diverged at different intervals, both likely. So the CERV1 may have been restricted or even removed due to differences in biological susceptibility.

It's a bad analogy because they are not just gaps due to our ignorance. I don't think ignorance actually applies here as it implies not trying to understand. The "incompleteness" of the fossil record is another one of those controversies in evolution. Not everyone agrees and several have stated it's actually complete because statistically if we have many fossils of phyla and even multiple from a single species then gradualism should have resulted in fossilisation of their lineages as well. It's strong evidence that gradualism didn't happen.

And strong evidence that sudden changes probably happened in response to perhaps environmental factors. It casrs dount over gradualism but not evolution.

I don't. As I said previously ID and evolution are both bad science as they interpret the evidence from an a priori assumption - evolution happened due to gradual natural processes, ID says randomness can't account for all structures. ID actually doesn't discount evolution so it's nothing but an attempt for theistic evolution to wiggle its way into classrooms and churches.

Creationism (of life) can only tell us that there's a creator. Aliens can't be ruled out so we have to look at history and philosophy to tell us the identity and nature of the Creator. We do that anyway without creationism or science. I don't know why people on both sides have to misrepresent it as a battle between science and religion when evolution can't disprove God and creation can't prove God.

The funny thing is this, and I'll leave you to ponder over it. Evolution happens just enough not to rule it out but not enough to rule out creation. All the evidence that fits into an evolution paradigm can also fit into a creation paradigm. Dating methods arrange fossils in a nice chronological order from simple to more complex but isn't reliable enough to rule out an overlap or to even prove an old earth. It's like if creation is true then everything is created with enough uncertainty to accommodate every belief.

Ok good, you don't support ID, you support creationism. Now, it has to be pointed out that evolution does not rule out theistic creationism and you don't have to argue against evolution to defend creationism. In fact, doing so is simply silly as evolution really is irrelevant in trying to defend theistic creationism.

 

[Techne]

I don't have time to answer fully, but you miss the boat as usual.

There is nothing I have come across that gives any empirical evidence of purpose ( "purpose", not your Aristotelian "ends" ), or that cannot be adequately explained without introducing "purpose". If you would like to provide some such evidence - convincing please - then I might have to re-evaluate that view.

And just because I quote certain parts of what Carnap says does not mean I worship his whole kitten kaboodle.

You see, the bolded part is simply nonsensical since empirical science does not try to detect or provide evidence of "purpose" (whatever your definition). Empirical science does not use "purpose" in explanations. That is the job of philosophy of nature and then we start to talk about natural ends. It is of course a simple fallacy to conclude from this that there is no evidence of purpose. Actually it is quite silly.

You can't claim there is no empirical evidence of "purpose" if empirical science does not try to detect or provide evidence of "purpose".

A good read is EA Burtt's "The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science", it may help out with a few misconceptions you have about empirical science.

 

[rwenzori]

You see, the bolded part is simply nonsensical since empirical science does not try to detect or provide evidence of "purpose" (whatever your definition). Empirical science does not use "purpose" in explanations. That is the job of philosophy of nature and then we start to talk about natural ends. It is of course a simple fallacy to conclude from this that there is no evidence of purpose. Actually it is quite silly.

You can't claim there is no empirical evidence of "purpose" if empirical science does not try to detect or provide evidence of "purpose".

A good read is EA Burtt's "The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science", it may help out with a few misconceptions you have about empirical science.

Don't tell me you read all of that book from 1923 LOL! I'm not going off on that red herring.

Nothing is outside of science in one way or another, using the term broadly. Does "purpose" exist? After all, we do have the word in our language. Yes it does, I think, unless we are just automata. If it is out there, if it exists, it can be studied. Sadly the appropriate scientific field would probably be that quackery called psychology, if referring to humans and their daily purposes.

The fact that most scientific explanations do not use the word "purpose" is because it is not found. And what you, stuck in your Aristotelian rut, call "natural ends" are not purposes, in the common tongue.

 

[Techne]

Don't tell me you read all of that book from 1923 LOL! I'm not going off on that red herring.

What? Is this a genetic fallacy again? Read it, it is interesting. Carnap's 1936 article was interesting, apply the principle of charity.

Nothing is outside of science in one way or another, using the term broadly.

Well, this is trivially true since you are using it broadly.Science comes from the Latin word "scientia" meaning knowledge. There are various kinds of knowledge, for example;
Knowledge we gain via our everyday experience of reality.
Knowledge from historical and literary sources.
Knowledge about the physical world.
Knowledge about art.
Knowledge about logic.
Knowledge about economical affairs etc.

We try to explain all these kinds of knowledge. We intellectually and rationally analyze knowledge and then yield systematized truths about various aspects of reality and then we name it the various sciences.

Knowledge about truths related to calculus, geometrical structures, algebra etc. are collectively labeled as the mathematical sciences. Knowledge about our social interactions with others are analyzed and reasoned about and we name it the "social sciences" e.g. the economical, political, ethical, psychological, historical sciences.

Knowledge gained from the physical environment via experimentation that is intellectually analyzed to yield certain truths about the physical world are called the empirical physical sciences e.g. physics, biochemistry, physiology, genetics, chemistry etc.

Logic, philosophy and metaphysics are labeled as general sciences and their main aim is to answer deeper and more extensive questions and in order to do so, rational inquiry and reasoning need to be employed to understand the more ultimate reasons and causes of things.

I am being more specific. I am talking about the role of empirical science. Simple fact is, it does not deal with purpose.

Does "purpose" exist? After all, we do have the word in our language. Yes it does, I think, unless we are just automata. If it is out there, if it exists, it can be studied. Sadly the appropriate scientific field would probably be that quackery called psychology, if referring to humans and their daily purposes.

The fact that most scientific explanations do not use the word "purpose" is because it is not found.

This is simply false. Empirical science does not deal with the concept of purpose. General sciences such as logic, philosophy and metaphysics do.

And what you, stuck in your Aristotelian rut, call "natural ends" are not purposes, in the common tongue.

For the Aristotelian it is, whatever the "common tongue" is supposed to be.

 

[rwenzori]

Carnap talks a bunch of gibberish.

LOL! If he did you might understand him!

Your claim is that of purposelessness. You do not have an empirical experiment to verify that. Without a definition you can't even know what it is you are testing.

I gave a working definition of "purpose" some pages back. Purposelessness would be the state of having no such purpose.

An experiment would be interesting. One would have to work out what in the natural world could exhibit intention. Of course, if that murdering rock over there had an unhappy childhood, it was probably not its fault it committed the crime LOL!

 

[rwenzori]

Knowledge gained from the physical environment via experimentation that is intellectually analyzed to yield certain truths about the physical world are called the empirical physical sciences e.g. physics, biochemistry, physiology, genetics, chemistry etc.

Stop thinking in little boxes with labels on them.

Logic, philosophy and metaphysics are labeled as general sciences and their main aim is to answer deeper and more extensive questions and in order to do so, rational inquiry and reasoning need to be employed to understand the more ultimate reasons and causes of things.

I am being more specific. I am talking about the role of empirical science. Simple fact is, it does not deal with purpose.


This is simply false. Empirical science does not deal with the concept of purpose. General sciences such as logic, philosophy and metaphysics do.

Logic and metaphysics have stuff all to do with purpose.

Empirical science has as its subject anything out there in the physical world. If there is purpose, let it find it.

Any "general sciences" as you label them ( what is it with you and little boxes? ) that make claims of purpose, and have no grounding in the physical world, are just speculative bunk.

For the Aristotelian it is, whatever the "common tongue" is supposed to be.

I gave you a definition earlier from the OED. That is the common English understanding of the term.

 

[Techne]

LOL! If he did you might understand him!



I gave a working definition of "purpose" some pages back. Purposelessness would be the state of having no such purpose.

An experiment would be interesting. One would have to work out what in the natural world could exhibit intention. Of course, if that murdering rock over there had an unhappy childhood, it was probably not its fault it committed the crime LOL!

As to the bolded part:
Do you agree that humans do exhibit intention?
Are we part of the natural world?

A yes answer to both would simply refute your claim that there is no purpose. But, you may answer the first one as "No" and read up on Alex Rosenberg's book "Atheist's Guide to Reality". He is intellectually honest enough to draw logical conclusions from premises and defend his conclusions no matter how difficult they may be to accept. You should read it.