Maybe this will clarify: can I encourage my offspring's instinct for Evolution?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So this is simple one way but complicated another: my offspring's instinct for Evolution, ultimately consists of the conversion of my experience of it (for them). There are a number of stages at which I can guide my offspring, as regards what they believe about Evolution.

First of all, I know that as descendants of Adam, they will want to divide good Evolution from bad Evolution. I can encourage them to develop more or less contrast as regards this.

Second of all, I know that they will place weight on Evolution, they can experience, as distinct from Evolution that they cannot experience. This will vary depending on what they believe the source of their Evolution is from: is it from monkeys? Or is it from something that depends on monkeys being monkeys (not a transition from something else to monkeys)?

Third of all, it will depend on who they choose to be partners with: will they aim for a greater genetic burden or greater nuance in the Evolution they find themselves already with? There is a degree of similarity between those that believe in Evolution and those that don't too - this is where we start to get into the imagination, of what is believed successful Evolution or merely treading water - I leave that for you to reason out.

Fourth, it will depend on the example I set, of Evolution, in answer in part to all these previous stages, but also reaching beyond them, to mark out my own legacy of Evolution - do I encourage them to experiment, or do I insist on their making a greater difference with what they have got already: in principle, making a greater difference with what they have would be the preferred option, since that will (given the difficulty of Evolution) mean that they advance Evolution in greater numbers (of what is already considered Evolution and does not need to prove it).

My thinking on all this, is that there is no way you can say that "all of this is irrelevant", when after all what we should be asking is "what - of this - is appropriate?". The better answer I have to all these stages, the better the outcome will be for the offspring - I do not need to subject the offspring to a more rudimentary Evolution, in order to get the best Evolution "out" of them.

The power of this, comes down to the idea: if the idea of Evolution, is rooted in what the species can do, there will be progress; if the idea of Evolution, is not rooted in anything specific, there will be curiosity about what could have been progress, if it was a bit more rooted in something. That is the fate we suffer and die for: do our words make us great or do they tear us down - as Jesus said, "every idle word, will require an account" (from memory, the gospels).

So you tell me, if I take Evolution seriously this way will the instinct of my offspring, be gradually greater (than if I paid no attention to any of these things)?

Thoughts?

 

[Larniavc]

Nope. None of that is how evolution works.

 

[SelfSim]

Please .. don't have any offspring.

 

[Gottservant]

Nope. None of that is how evolution works.

So you say.

But I have said eight times as much as you have said "no" to 'once'.

What about you? You don't care that your offspring need an instinct, to hope to survive?

 

[Gottservant]

Please .. don't have any offspring.

Oh my, such power of words, I will just give up now.

 

[Larniavc]

So you say.

But I have said eight times as much as you have said "no" to 'once'.

What about you? You don't care that your offspring need an instinct, to hope to survive?

I keep my son alive. Until he can manage in his own. He has the normal human instincts- they don’t need to be taught.

 

[Larniavc]

So you tell me, if I take Evolution seriously this way will the instinct of my offspring, be gradually greater (than if I paid no attention to any of these things)?

What do you mean by ‘taking evolution seriously’?

 

[Gottservant]

Wait, SelfSim.

You've given me inspiration, I don't believe Evolution can be saved, anymore.

I believe in Jesus' image: which is neither Created nor destroyed (and I know what that meant - you will only find out, if God wants you to).

 

[Freodin]

...as Jesus said, "every idle word, will require an account"...

I highly doubt that Jesus, even if he used English language, syntax and grammar, would insert random commas into his sayings, as you use to do. Another of your quirks that I don't understand. I know comma rules are not the most basic things in grammar, but using them randomly isn't the solution to not learning them.

Then... if you "believe in Jesus" and try to take his words to heart... and then post THIS... why do you keep posting?

What Larnievc said is correct: none of what you wrote has anything to do with Evolution. Yes, he - or I - could do a more detailed response to your OP, and it would mostly consist of multiple repetitions of "This isn't how it works. This is not Evolution. This doesn't have anything to do with Evolution. What the heck are you even talking about?"

You may not be happy that we cannot take your ramblings serious... but as most of us have tried for years to get you to learn at least the basics of Evolution, at some point there just isn't anything left to take serious.

You don't understand what Evolution is, how Evolution works... and even in the rare (singular?) occasion where you appear to get a concept that really pertains to the biological concept of Evolution, you discard this potential understanding immediately.

So, to come back to the point: your posts don't have any relevance. They are "idle talk".
If that is how you want to spend your time, I don't have any problems with that.
But if you really believe that you will be held accountable for this behaviour, I would think you'd use a bit more caution in your words.

 

[Gottservant]

What do you mean by ‘taking evolution seriously’?

In principle, balancing strengths and weaknesses of Evolution, to give it a more perfect poise (a poise between good and evil, not necessarily more of one or the other)?

 

[Gottservant]

I highly doubt that Jesus, even if he used English language, syntax and grammar, would insert random commas into his sayings, as you use to do. Another of your quirks that I don't understand. I know comma rules are not the most basic things in grammar, but using them randomly isn't the solution to not learning them.

Commas denote, where meaning ceases and interpretation begins.

Then... if you "believe in Jesus" and try to take his words to heart... and then post THIS... why do you keep posting?

I want to be original, what's wrong with that? Is that against Evolutionist cannon, too?

What Larnievc said is correct: none of what you wrote has anything to do with Evolution. Yes, he - or I - could do a more detailed response to your OP, and it would mostly consist of multiple repetitions of "This isn't how it works. This is not Evolution. This doesn't have anything to do with Evolution. What the heck are you even talking about?"

All I hear is "I don't care about your children".

If Evolution were true, you would care at least about your own children, if not mine.

But that is you; use your words how you like?

You may not be happy that we cannot take your ramblings serious... but as most of us have tried for years to get you to learn at least the basics of Evolution, at some point there just isn't anything left to take serious.

It's gotten to the point, where I can sense, you are losing interest in life in general. Your trajectory has nothing to do with anything and you refuse to get off the plane, before it crashes.

Oh yes, the plane used to be a concord, how could it possibly "crash"?

You don't understand what Evolution is, how Evolution works... and even in the rare (singular?) occasion where you appear to get a concept that really pertains to the biological concept of Evolution, you discard this potential understanding immediately.

You can't show me anything you believe, you insist you would know if you knew what was relevant, and when someone comes along prepared to reason that way, you make a mockery of anything but slavish repetition of tropes that reflect nothing of the history you think you have. Your objectivity is mired in who has permission to interpret what you are saying and when the Devil bites you on the backside, you spew hate, that objections are ramblings which don't make sense.

So, to come back to the point: your posts don't have any relevance. They are "idle talk".
If that is how you want to spend your time, I don't have any problems with that.
But if you really believe that you will be held accountable for this behaviour, I would think you'd use a bit more caution in your words.

I introduce Jesus and His Words where-ever I can and let me tell you: it has saved me. Not the works, not God, not promises of eternal bliss: the Words alone have saved me. They spill into each other and confirm each other and make meaning in general stronger and more resilient - traits you would all like to have, if only you could connect it with your failing expectation that some day something better than human will come along and you will be miraculously able to inherit all of it, piece by piece, even cancer by cancer if necessary.

When you get to Heaven, make sure you tell God "yes, we heard our theory was lacking, but we sent your messenger away with ridicule thinking you would argue differently" God remembers well, who it is that was sent to free.

 

[Freodin]

Commas denote, where meaning ceases and interpretation begins.

No.
"Commas denote where meaning ceases and interpretation begins"
What meaning ceases after "commas denote"? What interpretation begins at "where meaning ceases"?

It's fine if you don't want to play by the rules. But then you also don't get to complain when others tell you that you aren't playing by the rules.

This is another cake you can't both eat and have.

I want to be original, what's wrong with that? Is that against Evolutionist cannon, too?

The problem is not you being "original". The problem is you being wrong. Consistently. Without realization or an intent to learn.

All I hear is "I don't care about your children".

Yes, that is another of your problems. You don't listen to what people tell you. You only listen to yourself, and make up both sides of a conversation.

If Evolution were true, you would care at least about your own children, if not mine.

Your misrepresented version of Evolution has nothing to do with caring about children. Your misrepresented version of caring for children has nothing to do with Evolution.

It's gotten to the point, where I can sense, you are losing interest in life in general. Your trajectory has nothing to do with anything and you refuse to get off the plane, before it crashes.

And again: instead of listening to what people tell you, you are making up stuff to respond to.

I have never worked in the field, but I was educated to be a teacher, and I love teaching others. One reason that I didn't persue a career in this field was that I couldn't get around the problem of people who do not want to learn anything. Who are convinced that they already know everything, who cannot admit being wrong.

Ever so often, I try again. And get frustrated because I fail, again. It's been quite a while since I responded to any of your posts - not because I couldn't have said anything, but because I didn't want to. Because I knew it would be futile.
I have spend a number of posts on you again. More than enough. Perhaps this time I will learn and just give up on you.

You can't show me anything you believe, you insist you would know if you knew what was relevant, and when someone comes along prepared to reason that way, you make a mockery of anything but slavish repetition of tropes that reflect nothing of the history you think you have. Your objectivity is mired in who has permission to interpret what you are saying and when the Devil bites you on the backside, you spew hate, that objections are ramblings which don't make sense.

I can lead a horse to the water. I can't make it drink.
I can show you what I "believe". I can show you what this thing that you keep talking about is, what it includes, what it excludes, what it does and doesn't talk about. I can't make you understand it, accept it, or even use it correctly.

I fail, completely, in this regard. Because it's not up to me. I - and lots and lots and lots of other people here - have lead you to the water. You don't want to drink.

I introduce Jesus and His Words where-ever I can and let me tell you: it has saved me. Not the works, not God, not promises of eternal bliss: the Words alone have saved me. They spill into each other and confirm each other and make meaning in general stronger and more resilient - traits you would all like to have, if only you could connect it with your failing expectation that some day something better than human will come along and you will be miraculously able to inherit all of it, piece by piece, even cancer by cancer if necessary.

I can't and won't comment on your status of "salvation". But if you are wrong about things, you will be called out for it. No level of "being saved" keeps you from "being wrong".

Being wrong is not bad. It's not evil. Being wrong is human. But being wrong is the starting point. Being wrong should lead to finding out that you are wrong, why you are wrong, how to stop being wrong.

Insisting that you aren't, and everyone else is... THAT is bad.

When you get to Heaven, make sure you tell God "yes, we heard our theory was lacking, but we sent your messenger away with ridicule thinking you would argue differently" God remembers well, who it is that was sent to free.

Here it is again: you making up both sides of a conversation, for your own benefit.

Just right now, you complained that "[we] can't show me anything you believe". You blame us for failing to get our message across.
In a way, you are correct. We fail to get our message to someone who is unwilling to listen and learn. It's lamentable fact, but it's correct.

But then you turn around, declare yourself God's messenger... and blame the recipient of your message for not getting it.

Hubris and humility. Learn the difference. Who am I kidding? Telling you to learn anything!

 

[Larniavc]

In principle, balancing strengths and weaknesses of Evolution, to give it a more perfect poise (a poise between good and evil, not necessarily more of one or the other)?

That's not going to affect allele frequency change over time.

 

[Frank Robert]

So this is simple one way but complicated another: my offspring's instinct for Evolution, ultimately consists of the conversion of my experience of it (for them). There are a number of stages at which I can guide my offspring, as regards what they believe about Evolution.

Your post displays a lack of understanding that evolution takes places in a population not in individuals which matches your lack of understanding that, with rare exceptions, evolution takes place over the course of many generations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do you refuse to learn?

 

[eleos1954]

Hi there,

So this is simple one way but complicated another: my offspring's instinct for Evolution, ultimately consists of the conversion of my experience of it (for them). There are a number of stages at which I can guide my offspring, as regards what they believe about Evolution.

First of all, I know that as descendants of Adam, they will want to divide good Evolution from bad Evolution. I can encourage them to develop more or less contrast as regards this.

Second of all, I know that they will place weight on Evolution, they can experience, as distinct from Evolution that they cannot experience. This will vary depending on what they believe the source of their Evolution is from: is it from monkeys? Or is it from something that depends on monkeys being monkeys (not a transition from something else to monkeys)?

Third of all, it will depend on who they choose to be partners with: will they aim for a greater genetic burden or greater nuance in the Evolution they find themselves already with? There is a degree of similarity between those that believe in Evolution and those that don't too - this is where we start to get into the imagination, of what is believed successful Evolution or merely treading water - I leave that for you to reason out.

Fourth, it will depend on the example I set, of Evolution, in answer in part to all these previous stages, but also reaching beyond them, to mark out my own legacy of Evolution - do I encourage them to experiment, or do I insist on their making a greater difference with what they have got already: in principle, making a greater difference with what they have would be the preferred option, since that will (given the difficulty of Evolution) mean that they advance Evolution in greater numbers (of what is already considered Evolution and does not need to prove it).

My thinking on all this, is that there is no way you can say that "all of this is irrelevant", when after all what we should be asking is "what - of this - is appropriate?". The better answer I have to all these stages, the better the outcome will be for the offspring - I do not need to subject the offspring to a more rudimentary Evolution, in order to get the best Evolution "out" of them.

The power of this, comes down to the idea: if the idea of Evolution, is rooted in what the species can do, there will be progress; if the idea of Evolution, is not rooted in anything specific, there will be curiosity about what could have been progress, if it was a bit more rooted in something. That is the fate we suffer and die for: do our words make us great or do they tear us down - as Jesus said, "every idle word, will require an account" (from memory, the gospels).

So you tell me, if I take Evolution seriously this way will the instinct of my offspring, be gradually greater (than if I paid no attention to any of these things)?

Thoughts?

"As the scripture teaches, `Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. ' (Prov. 22:6.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"As the scripture teaches, `Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. ' (Prov. 22:6.)

Is instinct trainable though?

 

[Freodin]

Is instinct trainable though?

The more relevant question in this regard: what the heck is an "instinct for evolution"?

 

[frank sears]

The creation was made in a way so that life could adjust in order for it to continue even in the face of environmental changes. That is a far cry from pond scum having the ability within itself, over time, to turn into a rocket scientist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The creation was made in a way so that life could adjust in order for it to continue even in the face of environmental changes. That is a far cry from pond scum having the ability within itself, over time, to turn into a rocket scientist.

I mean... kind of not, since the situation you describe is just tautological. How is one different to the other?