What is our purpose?

[Secular Sanity]

But generally, competition always helps a species become more fit. The losers adapt or the winners breed more.

Really?  I'm not so sure about that.  Who's producing more offspring, the winners or the losers?

Survival of the fittest (wikipedia.org)

Nope.  Tell us first in what context you're interrupting "survival of the fittest". 

Moral theory, economical, or biological?

[Syne]

"... interrupting (sic) "survival of the fittest""?

Why don't you read my reply to that very post...you know, instead of asking what's already been answered.

[Secular Sanity]

"... interrupting (sic) "survival of the fittest""?

Why don't you read my reply to that very post...you know, instead of asking what's already been answered.

Why don't you read my link in that very post?

Social Darwinists

[Magical Realist]

First generation rich? Most likely more fit. Inherited rich? That's more likely a result of a nurturing environment.

So any favorable qualities in the first generation rich would only be replaced by the spoiled lazy entitlement qualities of the second generation rich like Trump. So much for your myth of wealth = quality people.

[Secular Sanity]

A sufficiently nurturing environment can tip the balance...like welfare, funded by the winners, propping up the losers...whose offspring would otherwise be malnourished and die. Also, species who have lower life expectancies...like the poor...compensate with reproductive quantity. This kind of reproduction is largely indiscriminate. It's a trade off in survival strategy between quantity and quality.

"Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups such as, for example, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Instead, these groups have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches."

Survival of the fittest (wikipedia.org)

[Syne]

"... interrupting (sic) "survival of the fittest""?

Why don't you read my reply to that very post...you know, instead of asking what's already been answered.

Why don't you read my link in that very post?

Social Darwinists

I did...waiting for you to read my reply to that post.

First generation rich? Most likely more fit. Inherited rich? That's more likely a result of a nurturing environment.

So any favorable qualities in the first generation rich would only be replaced by the spoiled lazy entitlement qualities of the second generation rich like Trump. So much for your myth of wealth = quality people.

Where did I claim "wealth = quality people"? O_o
Not all second generation wealth is as you describe. 30% of rich families retain their wealth in the second generation...as Trump seems to have done.

A sufficiently nurturing environment can tip the balance...like welfare, funded by the winners, propping up the losers...whose offspring would otherwise be malnourished and die. Also, species who have lower life expectancies...like the poor...compensate with reproductive quantity. This kind of reproduction is largely indiscriminate. It's a trade off in survival strategy between quantity and quality.

"Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups such as, for example, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Instead, these groups have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches."

Survival of the fittest (wikipedia.org)

And? That seems to only affirm that competition does play a role between individuals, populations, and species. Only taxonomic class doesn't include this mechanism. And should it? Do taxonomic classes directly compete? O_o Or is it only individual species of different classes that may compete for things like available resources?

[Magical Realist]

Not all second generation wealth is as you describe. 30% of rich families retain their wealth in the second generation...as Trump seems to have done.

iow, 70% of rich families lose their wealth in the second generation. That's pretty bad. Guess wealth determines very little in terms of natural selection.

Where did I claim "wealth = quality people"?

So being a quality person has nothing to do with being wealthy. That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming that.

[Secular Sanity]

And? That seems to only affirm that competition does play a role between individuals, populations, and species. Only taxonomic class doesn't include this mechanism. And should it? Do taxonomic classes directly compete? O_o Or is it only individual species of different classes that may compete for things like available resources?  

There is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups such as, for example, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.

I'm pretty sure that we are mammals.

[RainbowUnicorn]

"We are modified worms swimming on our backs, descended from an early equivalent of a brine shrimp which, for some long-forgotten reason, turned over........Dawkins"

Well, there is no dignity and honor in that.  I think that is an unfortunate belief and very sad.   What Dawkins said is a matter of attitude, not a fact of life, and that attitude is not the height of human potential.   We struggled against the notion that we are worms and are instead as humans, we are capable of dignity and honor, and we rights should have a protected liberty, rather be subjects to the church or kings.  I don't think Dawkins attitude is good and something we spread around.  

I don't know if I've ever had someone question my signature before. Cool. 

There usually isn't a lot of dignity and honor associated with what evidence may be telling us. It isn't always what one wants to hear. Along the same lines, I think it entirely possible that the same goes for an answer to the purpose of (our)life question. It usually turns into a 'what I want to hear vs what is actually heard' type of argument, and not being one to shy away from the obvious I tend to lean away from the subjective thoughts. Doesn't stop me from imagining other scenarios, I can think of many that have passed through my feeble brain over the years. 

If you say something like there being a collective consciousness existing in the universe that we all eventually contribute to or learn from then show me. Nothing to be ashamed of for thinking it but as in the case of religious belief, you cannot make it fact. Consumption, waste(recycling) and end of life as we know it actually occurs. They're about the only thing we can truly hang our hat on and I have no problem with them being a purpose for LIFE, let alone one species of life.  You can include conceiving, birth and thinking also if you wish. There's probably more that we have direct evidence of happening. I think the question could have been rephrased to include subjectivity, but it wasn't.

is "purpose" a falacy of fated totalitarianism in action as a form of subjective mind control ?

[Zinjanthropos]

What if Life as a separate entity does not care who wins or loses, the more offspring the better. It's all about quantity. Remember we're talking purpose here. The purpose for a life form is a little different than that of life. But if you ask me, life as an entity cannot get enough of life forms. Be they brainless or intelligent, doesn't matter.

Life itself is not an entity...it doesn't have the capacity to "care" about anything. "The more the better" ignores things like the carrying capacity of an ecosystem and predator/prey/available resources that keep populations in check. Life only exists as life forms.

Aw gee, I so like it when my imagination can run wild. Overheard in a sales office far far away...... 'Well we have the Earth size model available but it has a limited capacity, only a gazillion life forms per aeon'

I don't think anyone would argue that you can only have as many life forms as food supply permits. I wonder if it's actually possible to hit maximum capacity because one life form is always eating another. I can't imagine the planet population reduced to one life form but then if we all share one primordial soup common ancestor then that would mean somewhere along the line we munched on our own kind just to survive. In some way, aren't life forms still doing it? Life ain't nothing without evolution, IMHO.