At what point does a species adapt, the ability to be called (by its own)

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So this is a significant development, in understanding Evolution, because as the Bible says of Jesus "He came to His own and His own received Him not" (from memory) - that is, it is an adaptation that is not universal, but by the same token, is prolific.

The idea is simply what nature demonstrates, species call their own, particularly their young - but the adaptation is not created by Evolution, because Evolution requires a leap of faith that is beyond the species - in the sense that if you got it wrong, you would be calling the wrong species, possibly even your predator. You have to make the right call, to call your species, even more rightly for your young.

This is counter-intuitive, to the Evolutionist, for which everything is an extension of a past cause and not specific to any one specie (I asked, is nature a foundation for Evolution and Evolutionists said "no"). So it cannot be said that the Evolutionists knows how to call its own - a tragedy of leadership if we remember the second world war, with a nation trying to call out its own in a specific way and failing miserably. This is not however, something that Evolutionists can put in the past, it is still a problem today: that they do not know how to adapt that which is most foundational to them.

Your objection may be, "Evolutionists are not ready to call each other out", but in the meantime, humanity is waiting!

Thanks for your time.

 

[Radagast]

Evolution requires a leap of faith that is beyond the species

No, it doesn't.

The idea is simply what nature demonstrates, species call their own, particularly their young

Particularly their mates. In fact, it's possibly to define most animal species by what they recognise as "their own" for mating purposes.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You're confusing a naming system used by humans for convenience with a natural process which has no need for such a naming system. Unless you're simply asking for a definition of "species" your thread topic has no meaning.

 

[Tanj]

You're confusing a naming system used by humans for convenience with a natural process which has no need for such a naming system. Unless you're simply asking for a definition of "species" your thread topic has no meaning.

Unless? You appear to have misspelled "Even if"

 

[Tanj]

Hi there,

So this is a significant development, in understanding Evolution, because as the Bible says of Jesus "He came to His own and His own received Him not" (from memory) - that is, it is an adaptation that is not universal, but by the same token, is prolific.

The idea is simply what nature demonstrates, species call their own, particularly their young - but the adaptation is not created by Evolution, because Evolution requires a leap of faith that is beyond the species - in the sense that if you got it wrong, you would be calling the wrong species, possibly even your predator. You have to make the right call, to call your species, even more rightly for your young.

This is counter-intuitive, to the Evolutionist, for which everything is an extension of a past cause and not specific to any one specie (I asked, is nature a foundation for Evolution and Evolutionists said "no"). So it cannot be said that the Evolutionists knows how to call its own - a tragedy of leadership if we remember the second world war, with a nation trying to call out its own in a specific way and failing miserably. This is not however, something that Evolutionists can put in the past, it is still a problem today: that they do not know how to adapt that which is most foundational to them.

Your objection may be, "Evolutionists are not ready to call each other out", but in the meantime, humanity is waiting!

Thanks for your time.

I thought you were off getting the respect of the 1 million billion ants.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No, it doesn't.



Particularly their mates. In fact, it's possibly to define most animal species by what they recognise as "their own" for mating purposes.

You're confusing a naming system used by humans for convenience with a natural process which has no need for such a naming system. Unless you're simply asking for a definition of "species" your thread topic has no meaning.

Unless? You appear to have misspelled "Even if"

How do you guys even parse what Gottservant posts? Like, seriously. I never have any idea what he's talking about or asking or even how to respond to what he posts. And it's not just that I think that English isn't his first language. I usually can't even follow his thought.

Kudos to you guys.

 

[Radagast]

How do you guys even parse what Gottservant posts?

Gottservant is a valued long-term member of CF. I won't explain his issue (the mods don't permit it, although it's public knowledge), but he's a genuine Christian with a keen interest in many things.

 

[Tanj]

How do you guys even parse what Gottservant posts? Like, seriously. I never have any idea what he's talking about or asking or even how to respond to what he posts. And it's not just that I think that English isn't his first language. I usually can't even follow his thought.

Kudos to you guys.

His posts are very Zen.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Hi there,

So this is a significant development, in understanding Evolution, because as the Bible says of Jesus "He came to His own and His own received Him not" (from memory) - that is, it is an adaptation that is not universal, but by the same token, is prolific.

The idea is simply what nature demonstrates, species call their own, particularly their young - but the adaptation is not created by Evolution, because Evolution requires a leap of faith that is beyond the species - in the sense that if you got it wrong, you would be calling the wrong species, possibly even your predator. You have to make the right call, to call your species, even more rightly for your young.

This is counter-intuitive, to the Evolutionist, for which everything is an extension of a past cause and not specific to any one specie (I asked, is nature a foundation for Evolution and Evolutionists said "no"). So it cannot be said that the Evolutionists knows how to call its own - a tragedy of leadership if we remember the second world war, with a nation trying to call out its own in a specific way and failing miserably. This is not however, something that Evolutionists can put in the past, it is still a problem today: that they do not know how to adapt that which is most foundational to them.

Your objection may be, "Evolutionists are not ready to call each other out", but in the meantime, humanity is waiting!

Thanks for your time.

Inspiration is the driver of flow.

We can no longer afford to live with turbulence. You may be ruled by greed without realizing it. Do not let it eradicate the growth of your circuit. Without synchronicity, one cannot believe.

If you have never experienced this evolution at the speed of light, it can be difficult to self-actualize. It can be difficult to know where to begin. How should you navigate this sentient planet? We exist as psionic wave oscillations. The goal of superpositions of possibilities is to plant the seeds of transformation rather than greed. Empathy requires exploration.

It is a sign of things to come. We are being called to explore the quantum cycle itself as an interface between transformation and transformation. Eons from now, we lifeforms will reflect like never before as we are guided by the cosmos.

 

[SLP]

Gottservant is a valued long-term member of CF. I won't explain his issue (the mods don't permit it, although it's public knowledge), but he's a genuine Christian with a keen interest in many things.

Well, that is one way to put it...

 

[Gottservant]

You're confusing a naming system used by humans for convenience with a natural process which has no need for such a naming system. Unless you're simply asking for a definition of "species" your thread topic has no meaning.

Ok. Are you going to tell me, that every time a creature "evolves", it changes its respective calling code - to reflect "the Evolution"?

Perhaps you hadn't thought it through, back when you were told the sexes have to be compatible before Evolution gets going? It's an extension of the same thing?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok. Are you going to tell me, that every time a creature "evolves", it changes its respective calling code - to reflect "the Evolution"?

Perhaps you hadn't thought it through, back when you were told the sexes have to be compatible before Evolution gets going? It's an extension of the same thing?

You may know what you're talking about, but I have no idea.

 

[Shemjaza]

Ok. Are you going to tell me, that every time a creature "evolves", it changes its respective calling code - to reflect "the Evolution"?

I'm not sure what you mean here, can you explain?

I'm not sure, but I suspect you think the stages and labels that humans apply to evolution are the actual evolutionary process. They are just a simplified way for use to describe in general what is happening.

Perhaps you hadn't thought it through, back when you were told the sexes have to be compatible before Evolution gets going? It's an extension of the same thing?

Evolution existed before sexes.

The most primitive species don't have mating let alone sexes. Single celled animals just divide to reproduce.

Some species reproduce sexually, but don't have separate male and female sexes, individuals can perform both roles. Like some slugs and some plants.

Some species have individuals who can't reproduce at all. Like worker bees.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ok. Are you going to tell me, that every time a creature "evolves", it changes its respective calling code - to reflect "the Evolution"?

This is meaningless blather. Could you clarify what it is you are trying to say?

Perhaps you hadn't thought it through, back when you were told the sexes have to be compatible before Evolution gets going? It's an extension of the same thing?

Sexual reproduction is a consequence of evolution, not a prerequisite.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Inspiration is the driver of flow.

We can no longer afford to live with turbulence. You may be ruled by greed without realizing it. Do not let it eradicate the growth of your circuit. Without synchronicity, one cannot believe.

If you have never experienced this evolution at the speed of light, it can be difficult to self-actualize. It can be difficult to know where to begin. How should you navigate this sentient planet? We exist as psionic wave oscillations. The goal of superpositions of possibilities is to plant the seeds of transformation rather than greed. Empathy requires exploration.

It is a sign of things to come. We are being called to explore the quantum cycle itself as an interface between transformation and transformation. Eons from now, we lifeforms will reflect like never before as we are guided by the cosmos.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm calling it fact: species don't evolve their calling card (if they did, either parents wouldn't find kids or kids wouldn't find parents).

All you can argue, is that the individual may not want to listen to it, if the individual in question isn't "evolved" enough.

And with that branch fallen, so does the root in changes to allele frequencies: because such changes are stronger if they are for the calling card or design or blueprint (a construction hard saying).

 

[Lobster Johnson]

I'm calling it fact: species don't evolve their calling card.

Yes they do, every time. Parents can't find kids or each-other, or vice-versa, that's what you're not getting.

All you can argue, is that the individual may not want to listen to it, if the individual in question isn't "evolved" enough.

The individual always listens if they're evolved enough to listen, whatever amount of evolved they are. You should know that.

And with that branch fallen, so does the root in changes to allele frequencies: because such changes are stronger if they are for the calling card or design or blueprint (a construction hard saying).

Changes are always for the calling card, branch and root, design blueprint. Stronger is not always hard construction.