Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't actually "lose", in this debate, between predator and prey, until you identify the difference, without mention of "relevance".
That's basically all you have: making my Evolution feel worthless.
In other words, every successive effort I make at understanding the compunction you say you have in your theory, the closer I get to redefining it - eventually, when you have redefined it, we will see your change for what it is.
I'm serious: everyone that comes to believe in Evolution, at some point wants to change it, but for the one that displaces it that understanding be tested.
You are basically setting me, or anyone, up for the fall, if they try to understand it in a context that is otherwise.
In the meantime, you condemn concepts like "naming Machine Evolution" as if, it hasn't been said dozens of times that anything evolves.
Where is your consistency?
I think what condemns you is that if you accept one Evolution is different from another, eventually the point in believing in a specific Evolution will be lost.
Which is more important "keeping Evolution the same" or "naming ways in which Evolutions are similar"?
Those involved in the biological sciences are, naturally, involved in improving our understanding of the evolutionary process. That is what scientists do. However, improvement involves change, so your objection is ill-directed.I'm serious: everyone that comes to believe in Evolution, at some point wants to change it, but for the one that displaces it that understanding be tested.
The process and progress of the scientific investigations of evolution are not established in order to confound anyone; quite the reverse Any one of average intellect and serious intent, properly directed, can readily grasp the fundamentals of evolution and lay to one side the details that lie at the margins of discovery. I sense, despite repeated advice in this regard, that you have failed to make the attempt. (It is not too late.)You are basically setting me, or anyone, up for the fall, if they try to understand it in a context that is otherwise.
Many words, probably most words, have multiple meanings. You are a fluent speaker and reader of English and should be well aware of this. There is no cause for you to be distressed by it. The evolution that seems most to interest you is biological evolution, the evolution that accounts for the diversity of life on this planet.In the meantime, you condemn concepts like "naming Machine Evolution" as if, it hasn't been said dozens of times that anything evolves.
Where is your consistency?
I think what condemns you is that if you accept one Evolution is different from another, eventually the point in believing in a specific Evolution will be lost.
Neither. Both are trivial and silly.Which is more important "keeping Evolution the same" or "naming ways in which Evolutions are similar"?
So what would you name "Machine Evolution"? I have a couple of ideas "Machinelation" "Machinelution" "machinagressus" (from the Latin "machina praegressus" - but I want to hear from you (specifically Evolutionists, at least at first)... what would you name it?
Don't hold your breath. It didn't happen that way with biological organisms (at least not according to science); there is no reason to suppose it would happen with machines.I'm ready! I'm waiting for a new machine to randomly spring up and assemble itself, from the minerals in the ground beneath it. I'm hoping for a new tractor first, something sporty.
Productive traits tend to prevail, but what is productive is contingent on context and circumstances.That's very interesting. i was taught that it is the productive traits that prevail. I guess you just can't believe everything that you hear.
Hi there,
So I have come to the conclusion that Evolution deserves its own category. Due to Evolution getting its own category, it behoves the adept to begin to set out things which do not belong to Evolution - according to that category (but belong to that category, because the category is self-sufficient). My point is, there are types of Evolution, that also deserve their own place in that category.
Rather than set out candidate after candidate, I thought I would just choose one,, and give you the idea - from there, who knows, you might be able to name them all yourself.
The candidate for its own name, under Evolution's category, is "Machine Evolution". The concept "Machine Evolution" points to the idea that, yes, with the right set of prompts, a machine can evolve - we have early computers, later computers, quantum computers, the list goes on.
So what would you name "Machine Evolution"? I have a couple of ideas "Machinelation" "Machinelution" "machinagressus" (from the Latin "machina praegressus" - but I want to hear from you (specifically Evolutionists, at least at first)... what would you name it?
The point is, we are working within the construct of Evolution's category, not Evolution itself - so we are able to point to things which evolve, without expecting Evolution to evolve (either itself, or other categories with it).
Have I made naming "Machine Evolution" clear enough?
I'll help define a new kind of evolution, and I'll even name it after you!
Gottservant Evolution - A type of evolution that makes no sense, and can only be described with word salad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?