I give up: I'd rather go backwards, than forwards (in Evolution)

Gottservant said:

I can't decide in favour of the negative, really?

Is it "against the law" or just "undesireable"?

Click to expand...

Does not compute.

Gottservant said:

You're being unreasonable?

Or unethical?

Click to expand...

No.

Gottservant said:

That's not an answer: that's an accusation.

Click to expand...

No, it is an answer. It's me saying that your statement does not make sense.

Gottservant said:

Evolution, like that, requires consequence and bias.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Evolution just requires there to be life existing, in whatever shape or form, and an environment for them to live in.

Gottservant said:

Come on, Man, I have to tow the line and compete with Evolved people - if I didn't we would all lose out (the Evolved people would stay the same and my trying to be different would be for nothing).

If there is a consequence, there is also a "bias" - that's all I'm saying, at this stage.

You don't get to go to stage two, without bias at stage one - its just common sense!

Click to expand...

Does not compute.

Gottservant said:

Yes but is it evolved, before or after the transition to the next?

Click to expand...

Evolution is an ongoing process, like sedimentation or erosion.

Gottservant said:

I don't just want to believe in Evolution,

As the guy on TV just said a moment ago: "I want to be heavily invested" (in Evolution)

That implies, believing more than a superficial level of understanding of the theory in question

Click to expand...

Oh, you're free not to believe in evolution. But you cannot argue with the immutable scientific fact that evolution is a fact of biology.

Gottservant said:

Sedimentation happens after soil is added; erosion happens after water is added.

Nothing I have said contradicts that.

You are saying '"Evolution" happens, after everything is added' - that just does not make sense?

Click to expand...

No, you're saying that. Evolution happens after life is added. Without life, there is no evolution.

Gottservant said:

Ok. Well that answers the question I put to you: the ape is an ape, after he becomes an ape (not before he becomes an ape).

But we have since learned, that this is different, for different creatures (evolution is relative).

Are you suggesting that the ape, is more an ape, the longer he waits after becoming an ape or the less he waits after becoming an ape?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not suggesting anything. You're putting words in my mouth and spouting gibberish.

The ape is an ape when the ape becomes an ape. Not after, not before. When he becomes an ape. He will still be an ape afterwards, since we humans are members of the great apes, and that's it.

The ape will always be an ape. His external physical form might change in response to a changing environment, but his internal biology, his skeleton and his organs, will always be that of an ape.

Seriously: LEARN. THE SCIENCE.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Oh, you're free not to believe in evolution. But you cannot argue with the immutable scientific fact that evolution is a fact of biology.

Click to expand...

Does DNA change?

Gottservant said:

Except that the correct question for the context is not "which is a cat" which is absolute and cannot change, but "which is more cat?" which is relative to the cat's ability to hunt.

Click to expand...

That's not how questions work.

You asked a question and I answered it, you don't get to go back and change the question and say my answer was wrong.

I don't care if you define cats by their ability to hunt, it isn't important, or even true. They are both clearly cats. So you earlier statement that answering both implies a choice is false.

Gottservant said:

Watch what happens next.. you'll see the problem:



At what point, the fish evolved?

At what point, the man evolved?

Click to expand...

That doesn't matter.

All life is a continuous chain of evolution, where you define "fish" or "man" is irrelevant to the process.

Gottservant said:

That the fish was evolved because the Man was there, is disingenuous of what the Man was to the fish.
That the Man was evolved because other men were there, is disingenuous of what the Man was to other men.

Click to expand...

That isn't correct.

For one, fish existed for eons before men. For another, things not evolve for a purpose or reason, they are just the children of the survivors of each generation.

Gottservant said:

Does the fish give up being a fish, because of the Man or because he hates the fish he is?
Does the man give up being a man, because of the men or because he hates the Man he is?

Click to expand...

No, for 100,000 time. Evolution isn't a choice and it isn't relevant to beliefs, faiths or desires.

Gottservant said:

I am happy to speak in relative or absolute terms, for your sake - do not do me the disservice of saying "one day you may be unrecognisable to yourself, as you are now" that will never happen! I am always going to be able to recognise who and what I am!

Click to expand...

You will never change due to evolution. That's not how it works.

You have already been born, you are a human and already have all the genetic adaptations you have to help you survive or pass on to your potential offspring.

Gottservant said:

What do you mean by "parties defined"? You are saying to foundation "foundation - yes, from my perspective", to change "change - yes, change as adds to the past, starting with me" but no connection between foundation and what starts to change?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but when you said:

Gottservant said:

It's so arbitrary, it's banal. How can you adjudicate, foundation here, difference there - with nothing uniting the two?

Click to expand...

I couldn't understand what you were talking about.

What are the "two"? How is it possible to adjudicate foundation and difference?

Gottservant said:

It's just a fact: you seem to want nirvana, without enlightenment.

Click to expand...

No, I don't. From your earlier statement that sentence doesn't seem to make sense.

Isn't nirvana the stae one is in once they have reached enlightenment?

Gottservant said:

So you don't have to be ready to evolve? How did you find out about Evolution then? It happened by accident?

Click to expand...

You can't be ready to evolve. It doesn't happen to you over your life. You already have all the changes.

The species evolves, the individual, (you in this case), already has their traits.

Gottservant said:

So you think that the success of the Queen, has no effect on subsequent queens, even though the future of the nest hinges on her seed?

Something is beginning to stink, here.

Click to expand...

Sure her success is important to her hive and her offspring... but that doesn't mean she has evolved over her life. That doesn't happen.

Gottservant said:

So it saves you time, but it doesn't allow you to "differentiate"? You have to keep using the same term ("Evolution"), or it will die?

Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense.

I use the same term for the same process because that makes communication and discussion easier in general.

Gottservant said:

Except that you are trying to "rule bias out" without acknowledging that a certain degree of bias is required!

Click to expand...

A bias towards scientific evidence and an acceptance of cause and effect are necessary for scientific study.

Is that what you mean?

Gottservant said:

I keep pointing to the timeline, you give me and you keep saying "the whole thing is consistent" where if the whole thing was that consistent, you would be dead! You need bias to be identifiable, in principle, arguing with me that you could discern the bias no matter which part of history was the subject, is exactly the point! Please, define it - at some point along the trajectory you are trying to validate or have validated.

This is the smallest possible element of change, for your theory - without it, your theory is dead (as you might say "dead in the water").

Click to expand...

Why would I be dead if evolution was a consistent process that applied to life?

Specifically what do you want me to define?[/QUOTE]

HIM said:

Does DNA change?

Click to expand...

Yes.
Thought not in the sense of X-Men change. More as in a circuit is closed or opened sort of change.

Gottservant said:

Let me put it another way: "what is more evolved, a tiger or a cat?"

The tiger could beat the cat, one on one; but the cat can live sheltered by mankind, such that one on one's with a tiger do not occur.

The evolution, of the cat is relative to the human; the tiger may or may not be evolved relative to a human, depending on how well fed it is by other creatures.

The point is the more the tiger is domesticated, the more his survival is like that of the cat, whereas, the more the cat is pleasing to the human, the more wild he is able to be, within the confines of his domestic abode.

Neither the tiger nor the cat, stop evolving - but the human is able to anticipate evolution more easily and lightly, when he sees that it is nothing to do with a specific strength? But moreso the context in which strength is used?

This change, from absolute strength, to relative strength, is a higher order of Evolution - if it were down to one strength or the other, it would depend on chance, but chance is circumvented once the context is protected: therefore the evolution of context is a greater evolution, to most creatures.

Click to expand...

Neither is more evolved, because that's not how evolution works.

They are in different environments with different advantages.

Being a hunter in the wild it's useful to be big and fierce, being a pet it's useful to be cute and friendly.

Each is suited to it's environment.