Accepting evolution is some mix of accepting the evidence and trusting the source of the analysis.
Right, so doing that consistently creates a "reflex" of "what"?
Perceptiveness?
Calmness?
You would say that it agrees with Buddhism?
Upvote
0
Accepting evolution is some mix of accepting the evidence and trusting the source of the analysis.
Yes, it could - and so could the mentality that corrected it, which is my point
You corrected it, by giving it a context (wind) and an intent (moving).
EDIT: Note that the meme you changed it to, now has utility in connection with serving as a warning about what may be excess "wind" (because you put it in connection with "truth")
Now look at Evolution: what context is their for an ape to wish he was a man? And what intention of man would their be, to incorporate having been an ape, in his being more a man?
Don't just scramble my words, as you are beginning to be aware: even things with independent identities need to be justified or brought into relationship with "justice".
IT doesn't change what you do to justify, it - great: what is it you do (that has an evident connection with Evolution)?
Individuals have part of a population. If that population has Evolution, an individual has a part of that Evolution. It's just one for one.
An individual is an "agent", an agent is either justified or put in a relationship with justice. You may have to take a gamble, but not with your "agency" or the "justice of it" (on its own).
So there is just a mass of stuff that you don't do anything about, because you believe in Evolution?
You are appealing to the "gravity" of the "rarity of believing" (rare when compared with what it applies to or consider what you could have believed instead)?
The whole point of this thread is the scientific repetition, of what you call "Evolution" - that is, one would assume in a laboratory setting.
I am not trying to prove that the laboratory will evolve, if I am using the laboratory in a way that can already be used to find what it was that it was built for.
Can't you understand the utility of not believing "Evolution" in every circumstance, where a simpler concept could function more effectively uninterfered with?
Right, so doing that consistently creates a "reflex" of "what"?
Perceptiveness?
Calmness?
You would say that it agrees with Buddhism?
But the corrections had nothing to do with evolution.
No, the implications of both wind and motion were already present in the meme.
Also, motion does not imply intent.
All totally irrelevant to evolution.Gottservant said:Now look at Evolution: what context is their for an ape to wish he was a man? And what intention of man would their be, to incorporate having been an ape, in his being more a man?
Can you explain what you mean here? I honestly do not understand.
My ability to understand or explain something is not relevant to its reality.
In that context, then you can do nothing to affect "your evolution" to any relevant degree. You beliefs, theologies, scientific understandings, or even survival won't meaningfully change evolution.
It's relevant to statistical genetic changes across the entire population, not the actions of an individual.
As a similar example a single individual driving 1km/h slower on the way to work won't meaningfully change the traffic.
Honestly don't understand what you mean.
No, I am just saying that it is not relevant to evolution.
Evolution is accepted because it is the best explanation of the evidence. That's it.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about simple life forms living in labs... or studies of long extinct species found in the rocks... or even simulations of life-like patters that use genetic analogues.
No, I would not say it agrees with Buddhism.
The principles of science are based on the reliability of testing and investigation as a way of understanding the physical world. There has never been discovered a way to scientifically investigate the supernatural, so it can't be investigated scientifically.
Why not? Isn't that what I asked for?
But they obscured the truth!
It is a selection of the total possible movement - but my aim is not really to discuss intent specifically, just whether it has been honoured theoretically.
And back we are to square one: you denying agency has relevant properties to a theory about agents and their choices.
You can't just have a theory, you need a number of cases that show how you justify it (for the sake of what you implement, in principle).
Jesus said a similar thing: "Heaven does not come by observation" (from memory)
Just reiterating that justice is relevant one way or the other.
You keep saying "that's it" when there is more to be said, that is, of justice. It is my contention that if you knew how you were putting forth that Evolution could be done justice to, you would not be as enthusiastic about believing in it - you have a sort of blind enthusiasm about how universal it is or something.
But the perceptiveness, and the calm, you see those in yourself?
Specifically what do you mean when you say "repeated itself"?And I have asked what you would do if Evolution scientifically repeated itself, and you have not answered?
If I follow you, then there are multitudes of examples that are evidence for evolution occurring in history and still occurring today.
Specifically what do you mean when you say "repeated itself"?
As a general trend we see similar body plans and structures evolving to deal with similar environmental pressures... but the nature of evolution means that genetically, exactly identical forms developing is for all practical purposes impossible.
So you could have Tasmanian tigers and Timber wolves developing from two different families of mammals... but you would never see human identical Homo sapiens developing from another set of animals.
You always criticize me for attempting to link agency with evolution: here's a meme, that shows exactly what that flaw is (and its not something I say!)
Image
I don't know why exactly, but this meme spoke to me about how confused you guys must be that Evolution applies to absolutely anything under the Sun.
Says the person who claims that Evolution DOES apply to everything under the sun and can't be bothered to actually learn the science.
Really, Gottservant, why don't you want to learn the science? Is it too hard for you? Do you not understand how biology works?
I want to reappropriate, the information behind Evolution.
I think the faith could learn something from Evolution, if it just had the right information.
I want to learn, don't get me wrong - but I'd rather start with a layman's understanding and go from there.
Says the person who claims that Evolution DOES apply to everything under the sun and can't be bothered to actually learn the science.
Really, Gottservant, why don't you want to learn the science? Is it too hard for you? Do you not understand how biology works?
False. Completely False.I don't know why exactly, but this meme spoke to me about how confused you guys must be that Evolution applies to absolutely anything under the Sun.
No no, what do you do? It's no good being a professor of theory, without being a laborer of application?
EDIT: The faith helps the needy, the poor, the destitute.
I mean if the necessary selection pressures reverted and began again. Scientifically, its not an impossibility.
Nonsense.I get the feeling you think the cocoon is irrelevant to the moth, as long as the light is on - it might be irrelevant for a while, but the right conditions coming, that moth is going to hatch eggs, that had better respect the cocoon or else.
The more and more I ask for something simple, from you, the more it becomes apparent that you are keeping up an act, and little else?
It's a square peg, that fits somewhere, but you don't want to talk about squareness.
I mean squareness doesn't even make you happy! If you see a square hole, you're like "oh yes, of course - squareology, it was always going to be!"
Maybe you need a separate theory, for when "Evolution" works and when it doesn't?
Put it this way:
Say selection pressures create an ape and then moves on to create a man (from the ape), but the selection pressure goes back to favouring the ape (not the man)...
...is the ape that comes from the man (that came from the ape) easier and lighter to facilitate? Or does it depend on whether the second ape helps the first (ape) be an ape (anyway)?
I mean there really is a case, that experience has an influence on adaptation, isn't there?
Maybe you need to actually make an attempt to learn what you're talking about. If you don't want to learn, and it's very clear to anyone that you don't, then that's on you.
I think that's harsh.
Do I berate you that you haven't memorized scripture, while discussing things on a Christian forum? Do I say "why aren't you learning scripture?"
Have a bit of a chill - sit and think "What is it that I wish the average person would believe about Evolution? Do I understand it, from their perspective?"