There is no evolutionary purpose, only an evolutionary benefit:

>basing your profession on a theory less than two centuries old
Lel. We thought the sun rotated around the Earth longer than that you dingus.

File: 1481435021042.jpg (30KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 350x350px

>>8593579
>Not an argument.
Do you have anything more substantial than an appeal to age?

>>8593574
asking "what is the purpose of this?" is shorthand for "HOW does this benefit the organism's survival or how did it benefit its ancestors?"
Let's not get hung up on terminology.

>>8593675
This right here.

>>8593579
>we
Maybe your brainlet middle ages country did
>>8593675
>let's not get hung up on terminology
Sometimes it's necessary when arguing, because your opponent may take the alternate expression literally.

>>8593675
Not always though, a lot of retards are asking literally for the meaning of life when they question evolution.

>>8593574
Why exactly isn't a benefit a purpose?
And what's with that signature? You can get banned for that shit.

But the purpose is to benefit.

>>8594236
Because benefits are not objectively discrete whenbit comes to evolution. They are dynamic and traits are pleiotropic. Your purpose becomes ad hoc and undecipherable when you try to look at it in the case of every morphological feature. It becomes absurd and untenable to try and apply purpose. Let alone to the organism itself. At most you could simply say any organisms purpose is bound to self-replication.

>>8594236
Nature is throwing dice. Some times, she gets an odd roll, which produces a noticeable difference. Some of the times, that makes the organism created able to better function in its environment. Most times, it doesn't. There is no goal in sight, and therefore implying a purpose is ludicrous.