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

[AV1611VET]

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.

Are ALL Homo sapiens expected to toe some moral lines on their own?

What if a couple of them don't have as strong an innate desire to sprinkle morals over their stimuli?

(That don't sound right. )

Anyway ... what happens when two guys "let go" and become the animals they were taught they are?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are ALL Homo sapiens expected to toe some moral lines on their own?

What if a couple of them don't have as strong an innate desire to sprinkle morals over their stimuli?

(That don't sound right. )

Anyway ... what happens when two guys "let go" and become the animals they were taught they are?

You're babbling, AV -- you can't/won't address anything I just said.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're babbling, AV -- you can't/won't address anything I just said.

Oh, my.

Let's take care of that right now, shall we?

The problem, AV --

You consider this a "problem"?

I thought it was Mother Nature at work -- giving some animals moral aptitude and others none.

Why is it a "problem"?

Are all [plants and] animals supposed to have a moral compass built in by Mother Nature?

... is that all living things react to stimuli,

That's a problem?

... but not all of them are capable of moral judgments...

Isn't that the way Ms. Nature designed us?

... humans being the only ones.

Okay ... I'll humor this point.

Are we ALL expected to have it ... and having it ... use it?

No exceptions?

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

And here it is six centuries later, and the heart is still just a muscle, isn't it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, my.

Let's take care of that right now, shall we?
You consider this a "problem"?

I thought it was Mother Nature at work -- giving some animals moral aptitude and others none.

You're babbling again, AV.

Why is it a "problem"?

Because it's your problem -- it undermines your very argument.

Are we ALL expected to have it ... and having it ... use it?

No exceptions?

That's allegedly your area of expertise, AV -- say something useful on the topic.

And here it is six centuries later, and the heart is still just a muscle, isn't it?

Outside of poetry, was it ever anything else?

 

[Gottservant]

So basically we have four things that don't evolve: honour, philosophy, poetry and the heart.

 

[Herman Hedning]

So basically we have four things that don't evolve: honour, philosophy, poetry and the heart.

Depends on what you mean by evolution. As for biological evolution by natural selection, one of those things evolve - the heart as in a muscle that pumps blood. The other three things can of course be said to have evolved (and evolve even now) if you use evolution in the sense of change over time.

 

[Gottservant]

Depends on what you mean by evolution. As for biological evolution by natural selection, one of those things evolve - the heart as in a muscle that pumps blood. The other three things can of course be said to have evolved (and evolve even now) if you use evolution in the sense of change over time.

I'm not trying to insult you, but there is a reason I chose those examples: no one says "I am attempting 'honours'", or '"philosophies"' or '"poetries"', much less attempting '"hearts"'.

You are mistaking 'cause' for "God", basically.

But ad schismaticus, is a logical error - not a strength?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

What changed between me and my children

Your and their mother's DNA recombined and mutated a bit in the process at a rate of about 50-ish mutations per new born. 50-ish mutations that your children will pass on to their children, who will also add their own mutations to the mix and pass them on to their children and so on.

After X generations, one or several of those mutations might have spread so much that they are now pretty much fixed in the genepool and present in +90% of individuals.

That's evolution. The accumulation of changes in lineages over generations, to the point that the changes are present in as good as all individuals of a population.

It necessarily requires multiple generations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

You can not.

"jumping in lava will kill you".

Wheter you like to be burned alive by lava or not.

 

[Gottservant]

You can not.

"jumping in lava will kill you".

Wheter you like to be burned alive by lava or not.

Yes, but where you find the "lava" is not determined by how you say "jumping in lava will kill you".

 

[Gottservant]

Your and their mother's DNA recombined and mutated a bit in the process at a rate of about 50-ish mutations per new born. 50-ish mutations that your children will pass on to their children, who will also add their own mutations to the mix and pass them on to their children and so on.

After X generations, one or several of those mutations might have spread so much that they are now pretty much fixed in the genepool and present in +90% of individuals.

That's evolution. The accumulation of changes in lineages over generations, to the point that the changes are present in as good as all individuals of a population.

It necessarily requires multiple generations.

What you occlude, however, is that some mutations are regrettable and others are not.

So in fact, knowing beforehand that some developments are desireable, they can be encouraged despite the mutation getting in the way (epigenetically).

When Jacob bred spotted goats and sheep, he was not evolving goats and sheep: he was entraining his goats and sheep to adapt a more likeable design.

The more likeable a design is, the faster the rest of the species copies it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's getting weird again.

 

[Gottservant]

What if I come up with a word, that means: I have reverted from Evolving.

Like: evolutio interregnum redit. Or: irrevolution.

Am I compromising something pertinent to Evolution? Not believing it? Or is it impossible to influence it, one way or the other?

 

[Skreeper]

What if I come up with a word, that means: I have reverted from Evolving.

Like: evolutio interregnum redit. Or: irrevolution.

Am I compromising something pertinent to Evolution? Not believing it? Or is it impossible to influence it, one way or the other?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[HitchSlap]

“There is grandeur in this view of life...”

 

[Gottservant]

If I come across a greater Evolution, I will give it to you - call that what you will

 

[Gottservant]

I think what I am asking is "what warns you something is going to hurt your "evolution""?

Anybody else would say "their conscience" - but that's not a scientific answer??

 

[Skreeper]

I think what I am asking is "what warns you something is going to hurt your "evolution""?

Anybody else would say "their conscience" - but that's not a scientific answer??

Sorry buddy but your posts still don't make any sense.

Your posts read like an alien is trying to speak like a human but is failing.

 

[Ophiolite]

What if I come up with a word, that means: I have reverted from Evolving.

Like: evolutio interregnum redit. Or: irrevolution.

Am I compromising something pertinent to Evolution? Not believing it? Or is it impossible to influence it, one way or the other?

You seem to be under the impression that individuals experience biological evolution. They don't. Populations do. Do you understand that? If so, do you wish to rephrase, or withdraw your questions here? If not, what's unclear to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to be under the impression that individuals experience biological evolution. They don't.

I hang my arm out the window when I drive.

Now it's darker than my other arm.

Is that not adaption (microevolution)?