Ok, you go for it. Dirt particles settle in a fluid how they want to.

If that's what you need in order to make your philosophy work, you are too far up the garden path for conversation. — Banno

Clearly, you've missed the point. Perhaps an analogy is in order. Imagine the situation where we have two distinct things AB and BC, where A, B, and C are components that make up AB and BC. Now, if I show you AB and BC in their entirety, or if I show you the A and C parts, you will be able to distinguish the two - one is AB and the other is BC. However, this is where it gets interesting, if I show you only the B part, I'm 100% confident that you won't know if it's either AB or BC.

Do the following substitutions:

1. AB = a person with a purpose (you, me, @180 Proof)
2. BC = something that lacks purpose (e.g. dirt in a jar)
3. B = non-random behavior of both AB an BC

Put simply, relying only on non-random behavior, no one can tell whether the system exhibiting such behavior is teleological or not. To think otherwise is a petitio principii if there ever was one. After all, I'm a person and I'm purposeful and my actions are non-random i.e. the link between persons, purpose and non-random behavior is firmly established. Now, when I observe similar non-random processes in nature, I have a very good reason to infer teleology. If you disagree, you'll have to provide at least one instance of non-random behavior absent purpose/teleology which you can't because any such attempt begs the question.

Repeating your mistake does not help your case.

Repeating your mistake does not help your case. — Banno

No mistakes at all. You're ignoring my argument for reasons that I can't fathom. If you disagree, here's a challenge for you: name one non-random process that isn't purposeful.

name one non-random process that isn't purposeful. — TheMadFool

Evolution.

Evolution — Banno

Proof?

https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/yeast-study-suggests-genetics-are-random-but-evolution-is-not-20140911/
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium/a/hardy-weinberg-mechanisms-of-evolution

Any tertiary biology text will support what I am saying.

https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/yeast-study-suggests-genetics-are-random-but-evolution-is-not-20140911/
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium/a/hardy-weinberg-mechanisms-of-evolution — Banno

These are probably descriptive accounts of evolution but let's get down to the brass tacks, shall we?

1. You, yourself are living proof of teleology being associated with non-random phenomena. In other words, there's conclusive proof that purpose implies the non-random (some outcomes are preferred over others)

2. You claim that evolution is a case of the non-random not associated in any way to purpose. Ergo, it is the case that either evolution itself is the evidence for your claim or that there's some other instance of the non-random bereft of purpose. If it's the former, you're begging the question (assuming the very thing you're supposed to prove) or if it's the latter what might the counterexample that falsifies the link between purpose and the non-random be?

These are probably descriptive accounts of evolution — TheMadFool

Indeed, Indeed. No wonder you don't wish to address them. I think I've accompanied you far enough up your garden path for this evening. Cheers.

Indeed, Indeed. No wonder you don't wish to address them. I think I've accompanied you far enough up your garden path for this evening. Cheers. — Banno

I'm sorry you feel that way. Give me another shot at this, if it's all the same to you.

First, the link between purpose (teleology) and the non-random has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. You, yourself are proof of that, exhibiting as it were preferences which puts the probability of certain outcomes well above the random 50/50.

Secondly, if you haven't already noticed, the non-random nature of any given phenomenon (here evolution) forces us to entertain the possibility of a teleological factor in them for teleology manifests as non-randomness.

Thirdly, let me concede, if only for the sake of argument, that non-teleological non-randomness is a fact. If so, I present to you the following scenario for your consideration:

Measles (assume teleology) and German measles (assume no teleology)- both display the same symptom, red rash (non-randomness) - and so if I present with a rash to a physician, the physician won't know if I have measles or German measles.

So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature? — Gnomon
Natural selection. — 180 Proof

Yes. The selection process is "natural". But how did the criteria for those automatic choices arise in Nature? Darwin saw an analogy between human selection (animal breeding) and the weeding-out process of evolution. In this analogy, personified Nature plays the role of Breeder. But he didn't really mean that the natural Process itself made deliberate choices with a future goal in mind. Instead, his unspoken reference may have been to the Creator, that he was beginning to doubt. He later said that proposing a godless creation was "like confessing to murder"

By that, I assume he meant that he felt guilty for casting doubt on the Ultimate Explanation. And his uncertainty was exacerbated by his failure, admitted in The Origin of Species, to actually explain the origin of Life, which was a necessary precursor to the origin of species. And which seemed to evolve via an innate Logic. Ironically, that Logos is exemplified in the notion of Natural Selection. By another analogy, computer programs do their work in accordance with an "innate logic" (Boolean). And the origin of that syllogistic (rational) order was not a random accident, but was deliberately imparted by a rational & intentional Programmer. That's the "who" I was referring to. Natural evolution is the program, but who was the Programmer? :chin:

Darwin letter :
At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a “tendency to progression” “adaptations from the slow willing of animals” &c,— but the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his,
https://fs.blog/2014/11/charles-darwin-letter-joseph-hooker/

Evolutionary Logic :
These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin :
-- More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.
-- Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
-- Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
-- When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Secondly, if you haven't already noticed, the non-random nature of any given phenomenon (here evolution) forces us to entertain the possibility of a teleological factor in them for teleology manifests as non-randomness. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the people you are "reasoning" with do not accept the premise that Evolution is non-random and actually progressive -- moving toward some future state. That, despite scientific evidence against "blind chance" ruling evolution. It's as-if a designing Creator has been replaced with a random Robot. Evolution is cybernetic. But their random "creator" seems to be Blind Fate. :joke:


Evolution is often said to be "blind," because there's no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests
https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html

The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way : genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. ... The result is non-random evolutionary change.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_05

Evolutionary cybernetics :
Then, we need to study the evolution of goal-directedness, i.e. control systems.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOLCYB.html

Give me another shot at this — TheMadFool

Well, no. You've framed the issue in an absurd way. Just go read some actual biological texts, and try to understand the topic before you expound on it.

Well, no. You've framed the issue in an absurd way. Just go read some actual biological texts, and try to understand the topic before you expound on it. — Banno

It was worth a try. Thanks for the advice though. Good day!

Unfortunately, the people you are "reasoning" with do not accept the premise that Evolution is non-random and actually progressive -- moving toward some future state. That, despite scientific evidence against "blind chance" ruling evolution. It's as-if a designing Creator has been replaced with a random Robot. Evolution is cybernetic. But their random "creator" seems to be Blind Fate. :joke: — Gnomon

Too bad. I want to run something by you if you don't mind. First off, @Banno & @180 Proof claim that "evolution is non-random and non-teleological (no purpose/end)" = E. Now, E obviously needs an argument.

There's only one premise that can prove E definitively and that's the statement, "ALL non-random phenomena are non-teleological" = N. The argument would look like this:


Argument A
1. All non-random phenomena are non-teleological [premise]
2. Evolution is a non-random phenomenon [premise]
Ergo,
3. Evolution is non-teleological [conclusion]

Argument A however is unsound for premise 1 is false, the falsifying counterexample being humans who exhibit behavior that's non-random and teleological.

Premise 1 is unavailable (it's false) and that means the only statement that Banno & 180 Proof can use is, "some non-random phenomena are non-teleological" = S. This at least casts doubt on the claim that "all non-random phenomenon, are teleological" = T. The first order of business for Banno & 180 Proof is to prove S = "some non-random phenomena are non-teleological". A quick reference of Aristotelian categorical logic stipulates the following proof:

Argument B
4. All phenomena are non-teleological [premise]
5. Some non-random phenomena are phenomena [premise]
Ergo,
5. Some non-random phenomena are non-teleological = S [conclusion]

Notice, premise "4. All phenomena are non-telelogical" is false because of humans - we're phenomena and teleological. If this isn't obvious, it might help to know that "4. all phenomena are non-teleolgical" is logically equivalent to "no phenomena are teleological." What this means is Banno and 180 Proof can't even cast doubt on the statement, "all non-random phenomena are teleological" which is necessary for the argument below,

Argument C
6. All non-random phenomena are teleological [premise]
7. Evolution is a non-random phenomenon [premise]
Ergo,
8. Evolution is teleological [conclusion]

The main premise in argument C is, "6. All non-random phenomena are teleological" and this premise remains unproven.

To sum it all up, Banno & 180 Proof are wrong in asserting, "3. Evolution is non-teleological" via argument A because it's an unsound argument. Similarly, to claim, "8. Evolution is teleological" is also wrong. In other words, the matter of whether evolution is teleological or not an open and shut case as some might believe :point: Banno & 180 Proof

Time to get to the interesting bit now...

A scientific hypothesis, evolution is one, makes some assumptions and based on them some predictions. If the predictions bear out, the scientific hypothesis in question is said to have been confirmed and if the predictions fail, the hypothesis is falsified.

Now, let's suppose that evolution is teleological is a scientific hypothesis. We now need some observable predictions and that is nothing but non-randomness. Ergo, the following scientific argument,

9. If evolution is teleological then we should observe non-randomness in evolution [hypothesis & prediction]

10. If we observe non-randomness in evolution then the hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed
11. We do observe non-randomness in evolution
Ergo,
12. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed.

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed.

:chin:

:sweat: Ok, seriously. What is the end goal towards which nature is "randomly" evolving? Or, put another way, what is the "random" telos of "evolution"?

:roll:

NB: Btw, scientific hypotheses are falsified, not "confirmed". For example, the geocentric model of the solar system makes some accurate predictions of some planetary movements but explains almost nothing of how they came about; the heliocentric model is a better model in every regard – easier to use, more predictive, consistent with better explanations (e.g. gravity) – and continuously tested. The latter is a better scientific model because it survives countlessly more falsifying tests (i.e. experiemental predictions deduced from an observation-based hypothesis) than the former; however, nothing is "confirmed" by this methodological process of elimination.

the heliocentric model — 180 Proof

The status of the heliocentric model, an astronomical hypothesis, is CONFIRMED.

Time to get to the interesting bit now...

A scientific hypothesis, evolution is one, makes some assumptions and based on them some predictions. If the predictions bear out, the scientific hypothesis in question is said to have been confirmed and if the predictions fail, the hypothesis is falsified.

Now, let's suppose that evolution is teleological is a scientific hypothesis. We now need some observable predictions and that is nothing but non-randomness. Ergo, the following scientific argument,

9. If evolution is teleological then we should observe non-randomness in evolution [hypothesis & prediction]

10. If we observe non-randomness in evolution then the hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed
11. We do observe non-randomness in evolution
Ergo,
12. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed.

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

Well then, Fool, answer my question on nature's evolutionary "teleology" which should be quite easy considering you think it is "confirmed".

Well then, Fool, answer my question on nature's evolutionary "teleology" which should be quite easy considering you think it is "confirmed" — 180 Proof

Thanks for the kind gesture of resuming the discussion with me. I'm grateful. A few things we need to be clear on before we proceed.

1. All teleological phenomena are things that exhibit non-randomness

Ergo,

2. If evolution is teleological, non-randomness in it should be observable

Now, comes the scientific hypothesis and scientific because an observable prediction is being made. See vide infra,

Propose scientific hypothesis: Evolution is teleological
Prediction: Non-randomness in evolution

Scientific method:

3. Given the hypothesis evolution is teleological, evolution should exhibit non-randomness

4. If evolution exhibits non-randomness then the hypothesis evolution is teleological is confirmed

5. Observations show that evolution exhibits non-randomness [according to you and @Banno]

Ergo,

6. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed


Knowing something is teleological doesn't necessarily mean that something's telos is known. Knowing that there's a man in the room doesn't mean I know who that man is. Two different epistemological situations.

Of course "evolution" is non-random, I've pointed that out from the start. Like e.g. the weather, it is to varying degrees also unpredictable. Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. Chaotic systems are deterministic with regard to their initial conditions – thus, physus without telos.

Knowing that there's a man in the room doesn't mean I know who that man is. Two different epistemological situations. — TheMadFool

Non sequitur. Your analogy is fatuous, Fool. Rather: 'knowing a woman just walked down an empty beach means I can know the path she took by backtracking her footprints in the sand.' The epistemic difference between a claim being true and being untrue – search parameters of evidence entailed by predication. So if "evolution" has a telos (A) cite the observational evidence and (B) describe its fulfillment or end-state (à la an Aristotlean "final cause"). Absent that, TMF, you're just talking out of your bunghole and the discussion can't go any further.

Of course "evolution" is non-random — 180 Proof

Debatable but I'm running with your claim that it is non-random.

Like e.g. the weather, it is to varying degrees also unpredictable — 180 Proof

Irrelevant. All that matters is the claim, yours, that evolution is non-random. Why? Well, non-random behavior is an essential attribute of telos, aim, objective. You, yourself, are living proof of telos - a purposeful being - and pray tell how best to describe your actions? Random/non-random? Non-random of course.

Chaotic systems — 180 Proof

Irrelevant. Focus on non-randomness as a feature you claim evolution exhibits/displays.

Non sequitur. Your analogy is fatuous, Fool — 180 Proof

You asked me to state what the purpose (telos) of evolution is but that isn't necessary. My purpose, from the very beginning, was simple and to the point: generate as scientific a hypothesis as possible, make predictions based on it, and find out what that leads to. For your convenience, I repeat my stand on the issue in the form of a scientific hypothesis:

Scientific method:

2. Hypothesis: Evolution is teleological

3. Given the hypothesis evolution is teleological, evolution should exhibit non-randomness

4. If evolution exhibits non-randomness then the hypothesis evolution is teleological is confirmed

5. Observations show that evolution exhibits non-randomness [according to you and Banno]

Ergo,

6. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed — TheMadFool

So if "evolution" has a telos (A) cite the observational evidence and (B) describe it's fulfillment or end-state (à la an Aristotlean "final cause") — 180 Proof

I did cite the observational evidence. Look at the rough sketch of a scientific hypothesis above which states that evolution is teleological and the evidence is what you've been claiming is a fact viz. that evolution is non-random.

That out of the way, I must emphasize that I don't have to tell you what exactly the purpose (telos) of evolution is. All I need to do is show/demonstrate that has one and it has one if you insist that evolution is non-random. A better analogy than the one I offered comes from everyday life - you know everybody, at least normal people, have a purpose but you may not know what that purpose is.

you're just talking out of your bunghole and the discussion can't go any further. — 180 Proof

A possibility that grows likelier given that you disagree with me strongly. Nevertheless, I feel I'm on the right track on this issue.

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.

Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. Unless you have a direct revelation from the supposed Intender. But we have the same issue with the Arrow of Time. Except for those who live in static Block Time, it is obvious that the progression of Time has a direction. But what target is that arrow pointing at? Those whose interpretation is based on scriptural evidence can state with confidence that the End of Time will be as described in the Apocalypse of John (revelation). And that horror-show may be what the anti-teleology folks are denying.

In my own speculations about the Telos of Time, I don't claim to know what the ultimate goal is. So, I merely note that the forward & upward progression of evolution seems to be toward more organized complexity, and higher levels of intelligence. And, since 2021 seems to be close to the beginning of a an accelerating upward curve of compounding complexity and self-organization, the current state of the world is still in its infancy. And we have a long way to go, to reach god-hood -- if that Omega Point is actually in the cards. For me, it's just a guess. But self-organization makes more sense of the world to me, than the alternative of compounding Chaos. :cool:

Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology :
Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleo-logical explanations ... evolutionary change – the theory of natural selection, . . . . ___Francisco Ayala
https://escholarship.org/content/qt26s4355t/qt26s4355t_noSplash_36f1f3349cb98dcd90ca48a908f2f87b.pdf

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. — 180 Proof

I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.

Unlike scientists, philosophers are not sworn to uphold that short-sighted worldview. Instead, until recent times, most philosophers have followed Aristotle's example : to interpret the world based on First & Final Causes. The Mechanistic view works for pragmatic short-term science, like Chemistry & Biology. But for Astrophysicists & Cosmologists, the order & organization we find under our feet is also found everywhere they look, even back to the beginning of time. So, consideration of First & Final causes is not only legitimate, but mandatory. :nerd:

Evolution -- Teleology or Chance :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170904?seq=1

Teleological Evolution :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. — Gnomon

What Fool doesn't understand is "direction" does not imply destination and purpose – end goal – is synonomous with destination in this context. He is evidently profoundly ignorant of chaos theory, stochastics, etc.

Okay. Good luck with all that nonsense and pseudo-science. Non-random =/= purposeful. :roll: :rofl:

Fool affirms the consequent.

I think that about wraps it up for any attention one might play to Fool's posts.

Gnome is citing increasingly obscure and odd papers in an attempt to maintain his position. He's reached a conclusion and is looking for the evidence to back it. It doesn't bode well.

:up:

He is evidently profoundly ignorant of chaso theory, stochastics, etc. — 180 Proof

Mea culpa! :grin: I guess there's no point pursuing the matter any further although, in my defense, it has to be said that chaos theory isn't relevant. Chaos theory is about deterministic systems that exhibit randomness. I thought we were talking about non-randomness :point:

Of course "evolution" is non-random — 180 Proof

Okay. Good luck with all that nonsense and pseudo-science. Non-random =/= purposeful. :roll: :rofl: — 180 Proof

:lol: If you don't mind spending a little more of your valuable time, I want to ask you a question which is whether or not the following statement is true/false,

1. If x has a telos then x has to be non-random

?
Exclude from the discussion the paradoxical possibility that the telos is no telos in which case even randomness can be taken to be purposeful. A Taoist take on the issue - seems relevant if one were to claim that evolution has no telos because it's random - but that's another story altogether. It gets complicated really quickly I'm afraid but set this aside for the moment and please answer the question and don't forget to back up your decision with good reasons.

Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed — Gnomon

If 180 Proof comes to the conclusion that the statement 1. If x has a telos then x has to be non-random (above) is true, I'm afraid we're forced to admit that the hypothesis evolution has a telos is, as they say in science, confirmed.

Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. — Gnomon

Unnecessary in opinion. In my humble opinion, to know evolution has a purpose/telos is the first order of business. Finding out what that purpose comes later. Imagine evolution's telos is a gift. There's the information that there's a gift (there's a telos to evolution) and the second piece of information is what that gift is (what evolution's telos is). You can know that there's a gift for you without knowing what that gift is.

Fool affirms the consequent. — Banno

All scientific theories that are said to have been confirmed commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In fact it seems necessary that scientific arguments be framed in such a way that this fallacy is committed for if not they couldn't be falsified and I believe falsfiability is a big deal in science. See vide infra

Falsification of a scientific hypothesis
1. If hypothesis T is true then prediction P must be observed
2. Prediction P is not observed
So,
3. Hypothesis T is false [falsification of hypothesis T; only possible with premise 1 framed as it is]

Confirmation of a scientific hypothesis
1. If hypothesis T is true then prediction P must be observed
2. Prediction P is observed
Ergo,
3. Hypothesis T is confirmed

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

I don't think so, but it's an interesting question: can you tell by looking at evolution if it's purposeful?

In some cases organisms contribute to their own extinction, only to set up an environment for some other life form in the process.

If there was some purpose, what is its seat? The planet itself?

Keep going. You continue to make my point.

Keep going. You continue to make my point. — Banno

C'mon man! You know better: Science's Useful Fallacy

can you tell by looking at evolution if it's purposeful? — frank

There's a Western version and an Eastern version to the answer as I will explain vide infra,

1. Evolution is non-random. Non-randomness is a feature of phenomena that have purpose i.e. if x is purposeful, x will be non-random. Evolution, according to 180 Proof and Banno, is non-random. Affirming the consequent fallacy, yes, but that's how science works and scientists call it confirmation of a hypothesis which in this case is evolution is purposeful (substitute x with evolution). This is the Western version.

2. Evolution is random. Randomness is a "good strategy" I'm told but only under certain circumstances such as when faced with unpredictable, themselves random, challenges. In such cases, and I believe the environment life faces is unpredictable - the dinosaurs were wiped out by a random asteroid - evolution's best telos is to have no telos which is another way of saying, every telos available is game. This makes evolution robust enough to handle any and all contingencies. This is the Eastern Version.

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.

Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. Unless you have a direct revelation from the supposed Intender. But we have the same issue with the Arrow of Time. Except for those who live in static Block Time, it is obvious that the progression of Time has a direction. But what target is that arrow pointing at? Those whose interpretation is based on scriptural evidence can state with confidence that the End of Time will be as described in the Apocalypse of John (revelation). And that horror-show may be what the anti-teleology folks are denying.

In my own speculations about the Telos of Time, I don't claim to know what the ultimate goal is. So, I merely note that the forward & upward progression of evolution seems to be toward more organized complexity, and higher levels of intelligence. And, since 2021 seems to be close to the beginning of a an accelerating upward curve of compounding complexity and self-organization, the current state of the world is still in its infancy. And we have a long way to go, to reach god-hood -- if that Omega Point is actually in the cards. For me, it's just a guess. But self-organization makes more sense of the world to me, than the alternative of compounding Chaos. :cool:

Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology :
Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleo-logical explanations ... evolutionary change – the theory of natural selection, . . . . ___Francisco Ayala
https://escholarship.org/content/qt26s4355t/qt26s4355t_noSplash_36f1f3349cb98dcd90ca48a908f2f87b.pdf

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. — 180 Proof

I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.

Unlike scientists, philosophers are not sworn to uphold that short-sighted worldview. Instead, until recent times, most philosophers have followed Aristotle's example : to interpret the world based on First & Final Causes. The Mechanistic view works for pragmatic short-term science, like Chemistry & Biology. But for Astrophysicists & Cosmologists, the order & organization we find under our feet is also found everywhere they look, even back to the beginning of time. So, consideration of First & Final causes is not only legitimate, but mandatory. :nerd:

Evolution -- Teleology or Chance :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170904?seq=1

Teleological Evolution :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html