Hi there,
So this is just setting up the progression, in the opposite direction: a powerful member of a species is repeatedly told "you have failed to evolve" and the member does not know how - what happens as soon as that member mates and has offspring? Surely it depends on how that member interpreted failure to evolve? Did he resent Evolution, and eschew instinct for it? Or did he embrace not needing to know how? You see that you could very well become ignorant of the very thing that is most important to Evolutionists? The belief that Evolution is concurrent with desirable change, would be ignored?
So what is this powerful member of a species to do? His offspring need an instinct for something - and the sharper the instinct he passes on, the more likely they too will evolve, its just that they may not consider instinct for Evolution worthy (of them)? They will be a-evolved, as it were. This is not a detriment, to anything the offspring will do: they can still hunt, mate and adventure; the pressure to be like other species that believe Evolution will be irrelevant, not even an after-thought. What is the measure of the instinct that the offspring will have, perhaps even for the life of those that refused to acknowledge any "evolution" in the parent? Will they come after the "truly Evolved"?
This is where you are supposed to respond with the "Mystery" of Evolution, that it can only be interpreted for or against on the basis of a generation's ability to meet the test affecting all of the members of a given species. This is where you are supposed to say "the condemnation of that which is not evolved enough, is or is not effective in bringing about concern for how it will be passed on, nothing more" - as if to say that the indifference only brings on the inevitable if it was there already? This is not genuine - the aim should be to enable all creatures to interpret Evolution as freely as possible, that the truest expression of Evolution, is one that crosses specie boundaries, and reinvigorates the attempt to unite the hierarchy of species around greater survival, with less time given to speculation about what else is coming - the good that could be done, being done.
It is attributed to Einstein, perhaps mistakenly, that "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid". What I am asking here, is what does that stupidity mean in terms of "Evolution"? Does the fish pass on stupidity to the next generation? Or is the instinct to climb a tree, translated into an instinctive excellence for circumnavigating seaweed in the ocean? Can Evolution for one thing be transposed into great Evolution at something else? Does responding to mutation necessarily have to come first, or can pressure alone provoke innovating response? Does the pressure to climb a tree itself, not require a specific mutation?
If this means anything, it is perhaps most relevant, that negative pressure can be forgiven. Mutations can be overlooked, but social pressure can be forgiven. This is an important distinction: it is not necessary for someone who is pressured to develop mutations, as though that will help the pressure! The negativity on its own, can recruit adaptations that seem relevant, knowing that any specific mutation points interplacently to the broader context that adaptations may or may not take greater place in. There is in other words, a readiness to respond to social pressure; responding to social pressure, is better than responding to mutations - even if it is negative only.
In other words, negative social pressure, cannot easily and lightly be ignored, but most certainly redirected. To what end? Again, that is what I am asking you here: will future generations redirect negative social pressure better or will they adapt ways to identify who it is from, before it is encountered as something personal that they must personally deal with? You can see that there is a possible rejection of Evolution altogether here, right? Does rejection of social pressure, end up putting pressure on Evolution itself - to adapt a gentler way of urging change, even if it does put the species at higher risk of dying out, its adaptations not being competitive enough?
In part I feel like I have answered my own question, but please, take what you will and make something of it - I am not attempting to pressure you, into reinterpreting what may or may not be pressure you have tried applying in the past? Stay free.
So this is just setting up the progression, in the opposite direction: a powerful member of a species is repeatedly told "you have failed to evolve" and the member does not know how - what happens as soon as that member mates and has offspring? Surely it depends on how that member interpreted failure to evolve? Did he resent Evolution, and eschew instinct for it? Or did he embrace not needing to know how? You see that you could very well become ignorant of the very thing that is most important to Evolutionists? The belief that Evolution is concurrent with desirable change, would be ignored?
So what is this powerful member of a species to do? His offspring need an instinct for something - and the sharper the instinct he passes on, the more likely they too will evolve, its just that they may not consider instinct for Evolution worthy (of them)? They will be a-evolved, as it were. This is not a detriment, to anything the offspring will do: they can still hunt, mate and adventure; the pressure to be like other species that believe Evolution will be irrelevant, not even an after-thought. What is the measure of the instinct that the offspring will have, perhaps even for the life of those that refused to acknowledge any "evolution" in the parent? Will they come after the "truly Evolved"?
This is where you are supposed to respond with the "Mystery" of Evolution, that it can only be interpreted for or against on the basis of a generation's ability to meet the test affecting all of the members of a given species. This is where you are supposed to say "the condemnation of that which is not evolved enough, is or is not effective in bringing about concern for how it will be passed on, nothing more" - as if to say that the indifference only brings on the inevitable if it was there already? This is not genuine - the aim should be to enable all creatures to interpret Evolution as freely as possible, that the truest expression of Evolution, is one that crosses specie boundaries, and reinvigorates the attempt to unite the hierarchy of species around greater survival, with less time given to speculation about what else is coming - the good that could be done, being done.
It is attributed to Einstein, perhaps mistakenly, that "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid". What I am asking here, is what does that stupidity mean in terms of "Evolution"? Does the fish pass on stupidity to the next generation? Or is the instinct to climb a tree, translated into an instinctive excellence for circumnavigating seaweed in the ocean? Can Evolution for one thing be transposed into great Evolution at something else? Does responding to mutation necessarily have to come first, or can pressure alone provoke innovating response? Does the pressure to climb a tree itself, not require a specific mutation?
If this means anything, it is perhaps most relevant, that negative pressure can be forgiven. Mutations can be overlooked, but social pressure can be forgiven. This is an important distinction: it is not necessary for someone who is pressured to develop mutations, as though that will help the pressure! The negativity on its own, can recruit adaptations that seem relevant, knowing that any specific mutation points interplacently to the broader context that adaptations may or may not take greater place in. There is in other words, a readiness to respond to social pressure; responding to social pressure, is better than responding to mutations - even if it is negative only.
In other words, negative social pressure, cannot easily and lightly be ignored, but most certainly redirected. To what end? Again, that is what I am asking you here: will future generations redirect negative social pressure better or will they adapt ways to identify who it is from, before it is encountered as something personal that they must personally deal with? You can see that there is a possible rejection of Evolution altogether here, right? Does rejection of social pressure, end up putting pressure on Evolution itself - to adapt a gentler way of urging change, even if it does put the species at higher risk of dying out, its adaptations not being competitive enough?
In part I feel like I have answered my own question, but please, take what you will and make something of it - I am not attempting to pressure you, into reinterpreting what may or may not be pressure you have tried applying in the past? Stay free.
