Evolution eliminates intentionality  

Any naturalistic, purely causal, non-semantic account of content must rely on
Darwinian  natural selection 
to build neural states capable of storing unique propositions, as required by
folk psychology. Theories that attempt to account for  intentionality
 within materialism face the
disjunction problem, which results in the indeterminacy of propositional
content. If such theories cannot solve the disjunction problem, then neurons
cannot store unique propositions. The only process that can build neural
circuits, evolution by natural selection, cannot solve the disjunction
problem. The whole point of Darwin's theory is that in the creation of
adaptations, nature is not active but passive. What is really going on is
environmental filtration—a purely passive and not very discriminating process
that prevents most traits below some minimal local threshold from persisting.
Natural selection is selection _against_ . Selection _for_ requires foresight,
planning, and purpose. Darwin's achievement was to show that the appearance of
purpose belies the reality of purposeless, unforesighted, unplanned, mindless
causation. All adaptation requires is selection against. That was Darwin's
point. But the combination of blind variation and selection against is not
possible without disjunctive outcomes.  [41]  [42]  [43]

It is important that selection against is not the contradictory of selection
for, i.e. that selection against trait T is not just selection for trait
not-T. This is because there are traits that are neither selected against nor
selected for: the neutral ones that biologists, especially molecular
evolutionary biologists, call silent, switched off, junk, non-coding, etc.
Selection for and selection against are contraries, not contradictories.  [41]
[42]

Natural selection cannot discriminate between coextensive properties. To see
how Darwinian selection against works in a real case, consider two distinct
gene products, one of which is neutral or even harmful to an organism and the
other of which is beneficial, that are coded for by adjacent genes on the
chromosomes. This is the phenomenon of genetic linkage. The traits that the
genes coded for will be coextensive in a population because the gene-types are
coextensive in that population. Mendelian assortment and segregation do not
break up these packages of genes with any efficiency. Only crossover, the
breaking up and faulty re-annealing of chromosomal strings or similar
processes, can do this. As Darwin realized, no process producing variants in
nature picks up on future usefulness, convenience, need, or adaptational
value. The only thing evolution (natural selection-against) can do about the
free-riding maladaptive or neutral trait, whose genes are riding along close
to the genes for an adaptive trait, is wait around for the genetic material to
be broken at just the right place, between the genes. Once this happens,
Darwinian processes can begin to tell the difference between them. But only
when environmental vicissitudes break up the DNA on which the two adjacent
genes sit can selection against get started—if one of the two proteins is
harmful.  [41]  [42]

Darwinian theory's disjunction problem is that the process Darwin discovered
cannot tell the difference between these two genes or their traits until
crossover breaks the linkage between one gene, which is going to increase its
frequency, and the other, which is going to decrease its frequency. If they
are never separated, it will remain blind to their differences forever. What
is worse, and more likely, one gene sequence can code for a favorable trait—a
protein required for survival—while part of the same sequence can code for a
maladaptive trait—some gene product that reduces fitness. Natural selection