Hi there,
So something that will help me, even if it doesn't mean I am a star at translating human to post-human evolution, is that the nature of observation, is that it has to be educated. Observation has to be educated, because if it is observation at random, the observations made will never cohere, in a way that is constructive. You simply cannot "hope" randomness will create order, unless you first stipulate: that order itself is related one kind to another - as indeed drove Darwin, to detail a large map of which species he imagined would be related and in what way.
In Evolutionary terms, the observations are believed to be relateable by allele frequencies. The point is: how did Evolutionary alleles come to be identified, by creatures made up of those alleles? Clearly, it is only possible, if some sort of exemption was granted, as relates to the specificity of those frequencies. A generalized term will supplant the particular nuance of a group of allele frequencies, in a given species, because they cannot all compete for the same frequencies - if they did, you would have genetic evolutionary chaos? This exemption we see then, is in stages.
But why is the exemption in stages? Precisely because genetic evolutionary chaos would more than leave without favour: it would disfavour, at random, the entire context of created species. If it were exemption in gradient, all species would be compared with a central species; if it were a curve, all species would be expected to self-implicate in an attempt to change, for no reason. Neither of these notions have any theoretical utility, and hence they were dropped, in favour of a truism that the theory of Evolution was able to save from chaos, by delivering from even more chaos - a half-truth, which is not wrong, if you continue to allow creatures to diverge from the assumptions of the initial bias of the theory.
How can I tell that this is not congruent with the allele frequencies that are permitted to those that believe the theory of Evolution? That is down to science; if science was able to detect a uniform cadence across people that believe in Evolution, it would be evident, in the "steps" they attempted to take (to keep having survived) becoming robust steps. What we see is that the same chaos that was there, was still there - even after the efficacy of "stepping" was put in doubt. The point is that the notion of species stepping from one generation to the next, is completely superfluous to the notion that some are no different than others, because we all need to repent! The tree of life will not save you - we all need to repent!
I just want to leave that there, for a moment, and let it sink in:
So something that will help me, even if it doesn't mean I am a star at translating human to post-human evolution, is that the nature of observation, is that it has to be educated. Observation has to be educated, because if it is observation at random, the observations made will never cohere, in a way that is constructive. You simply cannot "hope" randomness will create order, unless you first stipulate: that order itself is related one kind to another - as indeed drove Darwin, to detail a large map of which species he imagined would be related and in what way.
In Evolutionary terms, the observations are believed to be relateable by allele frequencies. The point is: how did Evolutionary alleles come to be identified, by creatures made up of those alleles? Clearly, it is only possible, if some sort of exemption was granted, as relates to the specificity of those frequencies. A generalized term will supplant the particular nuance of a group of allele frequencies, in a given species, because they cannot all compete for the same frequencies - if they did, you would have genetic evolutionary chaos? This exemption we see then, is in stages.
But why is the exemption in stages? Precisely because genetic evolutionary chaos would more than leave without favour: it would disfavour, at random, the entire context of created species. If it were exemption in gradient, all species would be compared with a central species; if it were a curve, all species would be expected to self-implicate in an attempt to change, for no reason. Neither of these notions have any theoretical utility, and hence they were dropped, in favour of a truism that the theory of Evolution was able to save from chaos, by delivering from even more chaos - a half-truth, which is not wrong, if you continue to allow creatures to diverge from the assumptions of the initial bias of the theory.
How can I tell that this is not congruent with the allele frequencies that are permitted to those that believe the theory of Evolution? That is down to science; if science was able to detect a uniform cadence across people that believe in Evolution, it would be evident, in the "steps" they attempted to take (to keep having survived) becoming robust steps. What we see is that the same chaos that was there, was still there - even after the efficacy of "stepping" was put in doubt. The point is that the notion of species stepping from one generation to the next, is completely superfluous to the notion that some are no different than others, because we all need to repent! The tree of life will not save you - we all need to repent!
I just want to leave that there, for a moment, and let it sink in:
- Physiological "stepping" is an assumption
- True "stepping" would result in 'robust' steps
- Achieving true stepping, does not justify a species above repentance
