Evolution becomes theory, theory becomes word (Word becomes guide)

[Gottservant]

Yes, you are an individual, and you will not evolve.

But if you had children, and your children had children, and so did they, and so on for many generations, then little by little little changes would appear between the generations.

Ok. So you can tell I haven't evolved but that my children have?

What changed between me and my children, that left them without a father?

 

[Gottservant]

You can't judge the validity of an idea by how likeable it is.

You seem to be suggesting that I have made a mistake, thinking how much I like Evolution made a change across the entire species.

I would suggest that if the entire species took me seriously, Evolution would change more not less.

 

[Gottservant]

You can't judge the validity of an idea by how likeable it is.

I think actually (in hindsight) you are right: you can't completely judge the validity of an idea by how likeable it is, but (on the other hand, you are mistaken because) you can mostly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok. So you can tell I haven't evolved but that my children have?

Apparently so.

We call it "adaption."

They call it "microevolution."

What changed between me and my children, that left them without a father?

They were evidently fathered by a "missing link" that is still missing.

We know, of course, it is missing because it was never there in the first place.

And that means your children weren't "without a father" -- YOU are their father.

 

[Gottservant]

[...]

We call it "adaption."

[...]

And that means your children weren't "without a father" -- YOU are their father.

That - to me - would make sense, AV1611VET: thankyou.

It gives me the sense that I can be for or against my children, such as improves their instinct for overcoming (as would survive better?).

 

[AV1611VET]

It gives me the sense that I can be for or against my children, such as improves their instinct for overcoming (as would survive better?).

Amen!

You need to be for them, of course.

Unless they try to pull one of those NATURAL SELECTION stunts:

 

[Gottservant]

My understanding is that selection comes in three flavours: natural, appropriate and perceptive.

Natural, is an unmourned state.

Appropriate, is a measure of difference to that mourning.

Perceptive, is different by an observation of the link between the unmourned and the difference to it.

So you never have the case, where you are so natural something can't change, but the change that happens has to be either worthy in its own right or relative to its own absolution perceptively.

Because there is no way to select naturally outright, the species is forced to compete and by competition justify its survival (as you might say, if not "justify its life").

 

[AV1611VET]

My understanding is that selection comes in three flavours: natural, appropriate and perceptive.

Natural, is an unmourned state.

Appropriate, is a measure of difference to that mourning.

Well Eric Harris certainly didn't mourn what he did, and that was certainly inappropriate.

That's the thing about evolution.

It's just a series of amoral reactions to stimuli that its host should be assigning moral judgments to.

The heart, for instance, is just an organ to pump blood.

Until Valentines Day, of course, when it becomes an icon of love.

 

[Gottservant]

Well Eric Harris certainly didn't mourn what he did, and that was certainly inappropriate.

That's the thing about evolution.

It's just a series of amoral reactions to stimuli that its host should be assigning moral judgments to.

The heart, for instance, is just an organ to pump blood.

Until Valentines Day, of course, when it becomes an icon of love.

Yes I think what is confusing, is that until it becomes an icon of love, people assume the simplest definition of a heart is all that is needed - but by the same token it changing to an icon of love, can be named a particular "kind" of transition that then needs a new definition.

This then becomes a kind of "folie de l'abréviation" that the iconoclasm of the icon of love, once heart, now has to account for one heart to another - when that was never meant at all.

Darwin, presuming God not to want to visit suffering on Creation, presumed that all Creation must suffer to come up to God's standard of insufferance - a plank in Darwin's eye: not God's.

Not that it is wrong to infer Creation must be devout in its suffering, just that you cannot thereby revisit the same expectation of one generation to the next, that in principle for the sake of Honour (not Evolution) may have joy in departing from (and thereby strength).

I don't know if you can see that? That Evolution tries to do for Honour, what Honour already does with Peace? That Evolution has a speed - if you will - that Honour helps, not detracts from?

 

[Gottservant]

I guess the question to put to the believers of Evolution again is:

What is it that you do for the sake of it?

For Evolution and the Honour of it? Or greater (which would be?)?

 

[Gottservant]

I guess the question to put to the believers of Evolution again is:

What is it that you do for the sake of it?

For Evolution and the Honour of it? Or greater (which would be?)?

Like for example, do you "Evolve" your philosophy, for the sake of it? How do you know you believe "Evolution" if you can't even evolve your philosophy? You expect it to change with your Evolution, but you don't know how?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not to take a tangent unnecessarily but I was thinking about Evolution and a question arose in my mind "what is it that Evolution does to be likeable?"

You may not like my choice of word, alternatively it could be "what is it that Evolution does to be liveable?"

The thing the faith does: is give a choice.

The thing that evolution does -- it fits the facts.

 

[Kylie]

What about the Evolutionary importance of "Transference"?

What do you mean? Evolution certainly explains this. when an animal is young, it needs to learn how to survive in the world, so the lessons it learns are the lessons it uses to live the rest of its life. What berries are good to eat. Don't bite bees because they sting. If you go to the river at a certain season, you can catch the salmon swimming upstream. It's also been documented that animals that learn bad habits keep those for life. I once knew a dog that was always afraid of men (the owner suspected it had been abused as a puppy by a man), and I once saw a cat who had the very annoying habit of licking your clothes non-stop. No idea how that got started.

Is it possible you expect your theory of Evolution to be reciprocated? But you haven't theorized it in the way that it can?

What do you mean by this? Evolution isn't something that is done by one individual to another. It can't be reciprocated the way love can.

 

[Kylie]

Ok. So you can tell I haven't evolved but that my children have?

What changed between me and my children, that left them without a father?

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Evolution means that one generation will be slightly different than the generation that came before it. Your children won't evolve as individuals, but the changes from you are able to contribute to the overall evolution of the human race.

 

[Kylie]

You seem to be suggesting that I have made a mistake, thinking how much I like Evolution made a change across the entire species.

I would suggest that if the entire species took me seriously, Evolution would change more not less.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. You don't seem to have the understanding about evolution required to have a proper discussion about it.

 

[Kylie]

Double post.

 

[Kylie]

Double post

 

[Kylie]

Double post

 

[Kylie]

I think actually (in hindsight) you are right: you can't completely judge the validity of an idea by how likeable it is, but (on the other hand, you are mistaken because) you can mostly.

No you can't.

The idea that I have ten million dollars in my bank account is a VERY likeable idea, but it's not valid at all.

If I fall out of a plane with no parachute, then that is a very UNlikeable idea, but it is a very valid one.

How likeable an idea is has absolutely nothing to do with its validity. There is absolutely no connection between them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well Eric Harris certainly didn't mourn what he did, and that was certainly inappropriate.

That's the thing about evolution.

It's just a series of amoral reactions to stimuli that its host should be assigning moral judgments to.

The problem, AV -- is that all living things react to stimuli, but not all of them are capable of moral judgments... humans being the only ones.

The heart, for instance, is just an organ to pump blood.

Until Valentines Day, of course, when it becomes an icon of love.

And that wasn't even the case until around the 15th Century...