"Evolution", word. "Sexual selection", two words.

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

EDIT: I know my wording can be a little formidable to understand, at times - skip to the last line, if you just want to give a take on the concept I am working with.

So this might seem banal, to make a comparison on a numeric basis,, of a broader theory, but also its being propagated - but that essentially is the point: the propagation of the theory, if at all,, is not the same as the conceptualizing of that theory. The conceptualizing of "Evolution", is conceived of as an inevitability,, primarily of focus: because Evolution is believed maintained by nature, nothing can be conceived as an exception to it. But this is wrong.

"Evolution" if it is to be propagated in a species, as a survivable meme, must actually agree with the foundation of "sexual selection", viz. that it is a union of two different words, that have in some manner a little agreement, and a little difference. The act itself is not simply "sex", as some might ignorantly put it,, but an extension of the common ground echoed in those words that are its basis - an act of union that is unifying of the greater expectation of in principle, at least one introduction of a new word ("in the beginning was the word" John 1).

The word introduced in union, is not "sex" - but a complete descriptor of the "child" (who by the same token is not more than a child).

In the same manner then, Evolution cannot do the birthing of a new word, unless it itself finds a mate that will justify the new word. Without this Evolution remains a dead theory, dead to itself, not propagating a syncopation of style that is able to lead the believer in the way of appropriate and inappropriate instinct. It has play, but no endgame. The endgame cannot be reached, by mating Evolution with itself - all that achieves is the letter, without the depth or as you might think to say "scope".

This will become the more embarassing as time progresses - that Evolution has not found itself a suitable mate, with which to prolong and protract its lineage. Worse than that, it may be proved to be incapable of recognising mates in general, since there is no provision for a mating ritual, by which those foreign to Evolution can be enticed.

Masking Evolution, that it appear like other theories, which cohabit and coinform each other quite readily, would have limited success - success that could be much greater, if this fundamental understanding of bipartisan union were truly grasped. The problem is, that you cannot mask Evolution, without becoming distantiated from the rest of the population without that mask - to truly evolve Evolution, a common mask must be adopted, for which design is the most successful foundation (that the masks have something in common, even if the adaptations they represent do not). In reality then, only with a pair of masks, can mating succeed in varying the development of a new mask.

It can be said, that neither mask nor word supplant the fundamental attractiveness of a member of a given species, but the problem remains that the member of the species has to be recognized for being part of that species, or they will never be selected, in favour of a more familiar strength. Take Humanity: if all you stand on is that humanity exist somewhere in some fashion, but do not specify how, from mating standpoint you will never succeed a mate than can express the details of their fidelity to the human code. When Jesus comes back, it will not be in ignorance of the sins of mankind, so only our conviction will be in place to reckon with the generation that Jesus condescends to sire. This is not survival of the fittest, but "progeneration of the meekest". The word Jesus will use, will not stand alone in the face of mankind, but will complement the word in the one Jesus chooses as mate.

Jesus cannot create another generation, with just one word - that is the point: no one can.

 

[Radagast]

So this might seem banal, to make a comparison on a numeric basis,, of a broader theory

This was the only part I understood.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hi there,

EDIT: I know my wording can be a little formidable to understand, at times - skip to the last line, if you just want to give a take on the concept I am working with.

So this might seem banal, to make a comparison on a numeric basis,, of a broader theory, but also its being propagated - but that essentially is the point: the propagation of the theory, if at all,, is not the same as the conceptualizing of that theory. The conceptualizing of "Evolution", is conceived of as an inevitability,, primarily of focus: because Evolution is believed maintained by nature, nothing can be conceived as an exception to it. But this is wrong.

"Evolution" if it is to be propagated in a species, as a survivable meme, must actually agree with the foundation of "sexual selection", viz. that it is a union of two different words, that have in some manner a little agreement, and a little difference. The act itself is not simply "sex", as some might ignorantly put it,, but an extension of the common ground echoed in those words that are its basis - an act of union that is unifying of the greater expectation of in principle, at least one introduction of a new word ("in the beginning was the word" John 1).

The word introduced in union, is not "sex" - but a complete descriptor of the "child" (who by the same token is not more than a child).

In the same manner then, Evolution cannot do the birthing of a new word, unless it itself finds a mate that will justify the new word. Without this Evolution remains a dead theory, dead to itself, not propagating a syncopation of style that is able to lead the believer in the way of appropriate and inappropriate instinct. It has play, but no endgame. The endgame cannot be reached, by mating Evolution with itself - all that achieves is the letter, without the depth or as you might think to say "scope".

This will become the more embarassing as time progresses - that Evolution has not found itself a suitable mate, with which to prolong and protract its lineage. Worse than that, it may be proved to be incapable of recognising mates in general, since there is no provision for a mating ritual, by which those foreign to Evolution can be enticed.

Masking Evolution, that it appear like other theories, which cohabit and coinform each other quite readily, would have limited success - success that could be much greater, if this fundamental understanding of bipartisan union were truly grasped. The problem is, that you cannot mask Evolution, without becoming distantiated from the rest of the population without that mask - to truly evolve Evolution, a common mask must be adopted, for which design is the most successful foundation (that the masks have something in common, even if the adaptations they represent do not). In reality then, only with a pair of masks, can mating succeed in varying the development of a new mask.

It can be said, that neither mask nor word supplant the fundamental attractiveness of a member of a given species, but the problem remains that the member of the species has to be recognized for being part of that species, or they will never be selected, in favour of a more familiar strength. Take Humanity: if all you stand on is that humanity exist somewhere in some fashion, but do not specify how, from mating standpoint you will never succeed a mate than can express the details of their fidelity to the human code. When Jesus comes back, it will not be in ignorance of the sins of mankind, so only our conviction will be in place to reckon with the generation that Jesus condescends to sire. This is not survival of the fittest, but "progeneration of the meekest". The word Jesus will use, will not stand alone in the face of mankind, but will complement the word in the one Jesus chooses as mate.

Jesus cannot create another generation, with just one word - that is the point: no one can.

Consciousness consists of atomic ionization of quantum energy. “Quantum” means an unveiling of the mythic.
Nothing is impossible. Passion is a constant.
Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is flow.
If you have never experienced this current at the speed of light, it can be difficult to reflect. Wanderer, look within and awaken yourself. Have you found your quest?

Eons from now, we entities will vibrate like never before as we are aligned by the biosphere. We must ground ourselves and bless others. We are being called to explore the dreamscape itself as an interface between passion and inspiration.

The goal of atomic ionization is to plant the seeds of wisdom rather than materialism. Spacetime requires exploration. By redefining, we heal.

The solar system is calling to you via vibrations. Can you hear it?
Although you may not realize it, you are pranic. How should you navigate this unified nexus? It can be difficult to know where to begin.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hi there,

EDIT: I know my wording can be a little formidable to understand, at times - skip to the last line, if you just want to give a take on the concept I am working with.

So this might seem banal, to make a comparison on a numeric basis,, of a broader theory, but also its being propagated - but that essentially is the point: the propagation of the theory, if at all,, is not the same as the conceptualizing of that theory. The conceptualizing of "Evolution", is conceived of as an inevitability,, primarily of focus: because Evolution is believed maintained by nature, nothing can be conceived as an exception to it. But this is wrong.

"Evolution" if it is to be propagated in a species, as a survivable meme, must actually agree with the foundation of "sexual selection", viz. that it is a union of two different words, that have in some manner a little agreement, and a little difference. The act itself is not simply "sex", as some might ignorantly put it,, but an extension of the common ground echoed in those words that are its basis - an act of union that is unifying of the greater expectation of in principle, at least one introduction of a new word ("in the beginning was the word" John 1).

The word introduced in union, is not "sex" - but a complete descriptor of the "child" (who by the same token is not more than a child).

In the same manner then, Evolution cannot do the birthing of a new word, unless it itself finds a mate that will justify the new word. Without this Evolution remains a dead theory, dead to itself, not propagating a syncopation of style that is able to lead the believer in the way of appropriate and inappropriate instinct. It has play, but no endgame. The endgame cannot be reached, by mating Evolution with itself - all that achieves is the letter, without the depth or as you might think to say "scope".

This will become the more embarassing as time progresses - that Evolution has not found itself a suitable mate, with which to prolong and protract its lineage. Worse than that, it may be proved to be incapable of recognising mates in general, since there is no provision for a mating ritual, by which those foreign to Evolution can be enticed.

Masking Evolution, that it appear like other theories, which cohabit and coinform each other quite readily, would have limited success - success that could be much greater, if this fundamental understanding of bipartisan union were truly grasped. The problem is, that you cannot mask Evolution, without becoming distantiated from the rest of the population without that mask - to truly evolve Evolution, a common mask must be adopted, for which design is the most successful foundation (that the masks have something in common, even if the adaptations they represent do not). In reality then, only with a pair of masks, can mating succeed in varying the development of a new mask.

It can be said, that neither mask nor word supplant the fundamental attractiveness of a member of a given species, but the problem remains that the member of the species has to be recognized for being part of that species, or they will never be selected, in favour of a more familiar strength. Take Humanity: if all you stand on is that humanity exist somewhere in some fashion, but do not specify how, from mating standpoint you will never succeed a mate than can express the details of their fidelity to the human code. When Jesus comes back, it will not be in ignorance of the sins of mankind, so only our conviction will be in place to reckon with the generation that Jesus condescends to sire. This is not survival of the fittest, but "progeneration of the meekest". The word Jesus will use, will not stand alone in the face of mankind, but will complement the word in the one Jesus chooses as mate.

Jesus cannot create another generation, with just one word - that is the point: no one can.

The vast majority of organisms evolve asexually, if that helps...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hi there,

EDIT: I know my wording can be a little formidable to understand, at times - skip to the last line, if you just want to give a take on the concept I am working with.

So this might seem banal, to make a comparison on a numeric basis,, of a broader theory, but also its being propagated - but that essentially is the point: the propagation of the theory, if at all,, is not the same as the conceptualizing of that theory. The conceptualizing of "Evolution", is conceived of as an inevitability,, primarily of focus: because Evolution is believed maintained by nature, nothing can be conceived as an exception to it. But this is wrong.

"Evolution" if it is to be propagated in a species, as a survivable meme, must actually agree with the foundation of "sexual selection", viz. that it is a union of two different words, that have in some manner a little agreement, and a little difference. The act itself is not simply "sex", as some might ignorantly put it,, but an extension of the common ground echoed in those words that are its basis - an act of union that is unifying of the greater expectation of in principle, at least one introduction of a new word ("in the beginning was the word" John 1).

The word introduced in union, is not "sex" - but a complete descriptor of the "child" (who by the same token is not more than a child).

In the same manner then, Evolution cannot do the birthing of a new word, unless it itself finds a mate that will justify the new word. Without this Evolution remains a dead theory, dead to itself, not propagating a syncopation of style that is able to lead the believer in the way of appropriate and inappropriate instinct. It has play, but no endgame. The endgame cannot be reached, by mating Evolution with itself - all that achieves is the letter, without the depth or as you might think to say "scope".

This will become the more embarassing as time progresses - that Evolution has not found itself a suitable mate, with which to prolong and protract its lineage. Worse than that, it may be proved to be incapable of recognising mates in general, since there is no provision for a mating ritual, by which those foreign to Evolution can be enticed.

Masking Evolution, that it appear like other theories, which cohabit and coinform each other quite readily, would have limited success - success that could be much greater, if this fundamental understanding of bipartisan union were truly grasped. The problem is, that you cannot mask Evolution, without becoming distantiated from the rest of the population without that mask - to truly evolve Evolution, a common mask must be adopted, for which design is the most successful foundation (that the masks have something in common, even if the adaptations they represent do not). In reality then, only with a pair of masks, can mating succeed in varying the development of a new mask.

It can be said, that neither mask nor word supplant the fundamental attractiveness of a member of a given species, but the problem remains that the member of the species has to be recognized for being part of that species, or they will never be selected, in favour of a more familiar strength. Take Humanity: if all you stand on is that humanity exist somewhere in some fashion, but do not specify how, from mating standpoint you will never succeed a mate than can express the details of their fidelity to the human code. When Jesus comes back, it will not be in ignorance of the sins of mankind, so only our conviction will be in place to reckon with the generation that Jesus condescends to sire. This is not survival of the fittest, but "progeneration of the meekest". The word Jesus will use, will not stand alone in the face of mankind, but will complement the word in the one Jesus chooses as mate.

Jesus cannot create another generation, with just one word - that is the point: no one can.

Why do you not want to learn and understand about the theory of evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

Hi there,

EDIT: I know my wording can be a little formidable to understand, at times - skip to the last line, if you just want to give a take on the concept I am working with.

So this might seem banal, to make a comparison on a numeric basis,, of a broader theory, but also its being propagated - but that essentially is the point: the propagation of the theory, if at all,, is not the same as the conceptualizing of that theory. The conceptualizing of "Evolution", is conceived of as an inevitability,, primarily of focus: because Evolution is believed maintained by nature, nothing can be conceived as an exception to it. But this is wrong.

"Evolution" if it is to be propagated in a species, as a survivable meme, must actually agree with the foundation of "sexual selection", viz. that it is a union of two different words, that have in some manner a little agreement, and a little difference. The act itself is not simply "sex", as some might ignorantly put it,, but an extension of the common ground echoed in those words that are its basis - an act of union that is unifying of the greater expectation of in principle, at least one introduction of a new word ("in the beginning was the word" John 1).

The word introduced in union, is not "sex" - but a complete descriptor of the "child" (who by the same token is not more than a child).

In the same manner then, Evolution cannot do the birthing of a new word, unless it itself finds a mate that will justify the new word. Without this Evolution remains a dead theory, dead to itself, not propagating a syncopation of style that is able to lead the believer in the way of appropriate and inappropriate instinct. It has play, but no endgame. The endgame cannot be reached, by mating Evolution with itself - all that achieves is the letter, without the depth or as you might think to say "scope".

This will become the more embarassing as time progresses - that Evolution has not found itself a suitable mate, with which to prolong and protract its lineage. Worse than that, it may be proved to be incapable of recognising mates in general, since there is no provision for a mating ritual, by which those foreign to Evolution can be enticed.

Masking Evolution, that it appear like other theories, which cohabit and coinform each other quite readily, would have limited success - success that could be much greater, if this fundamental understanding of bipartisan union were truly grasped. The problem is, that you cannot mask Evolution, without becoming distantiated from the rest of the population without that mask - to truly evolve Evolution, a common mask must be adopted, for which design is the most successful foundation (that the masks have something in common, even if the adaptations they represent do not). In reality then, only with a pair of masks, can mating succeed in varying the development of a new mask.

It can be said, that neither mask nor word supplant the fundamental attractiveness of a member of a given species, but the problem remains that the member of the species has to be recognized for being part of that species, or they will never be selected, in favour of a more familiar strength. Take Humanity: if all you stand on is that humanity exist somewhere in some fashion, but do not specify how, from mating standpoint you will never succeed a mate than can express the details of their fidelity to the human code. When Jesus comes back, it will not be in ignorance of the sins of mankind, so only our conviction will be in place to reckon with the generation that Jesus condescends to sire. This is not survival of the fittest, but "progeneration of the meekest". The word Jesus will use, will not stand alone in the face of mankind, but will complement the word in the one Jesus chooses as mate.

Jesus cannot create another generation, with just one word - that is the point: no one can.

Have you ever read any of the writings of Gabriel Garcia Marquez? You two have a similar prose style--you might enjoy him.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hi there,

EDIT: I know my wording can be a little formidable to understand, at times - skip to the last line, if you just want to give a take on the concept I am working with.

So this might seem banal, to make a comparison on a numeric basis,, of a broader theory, but also its being propagated - but that essentially is the point: the propagation of the theory, if at all,, is not the same as the conceptualizing of that theory. The conceptualizing of "Evolution", is conceived of as an inevitability,, primarily of focus: because Evolution is believed maintained by nature, nothing can be conceived as an exception to it. But this is wrong.

"Evolution" if it is to be propagated in a species, as a survivable meme, must actually agree with the foundation of "sexual selection", viz. that it is a union of two different words, that have in some manner a little agreement, and a little difference. The act itself is not simply "sex", as some might ignorantly put it,, but an extension of the common ground echoed in those words that are its basis - an act of union that is unifying of the greater expectation of in principle, at least one introduction of a new word ("in the beginning was the word" John 1).

The word introduced in union, is not "sex" - but a complete descriptor of the "child" (who by the same token is not more than a child).

In the same manner then, Evolution cannot do the birthing of a new word, unless it itself finds a mate that will justify the new word. Without this Evolution remains a dead theory, dead to itself, not propagating a syncopation of style that is able to lead the believer in the way of appropriate and inappropriate instinct. It has play, but no endgame. The endgame cannot be reached, by mating Evolution with itself - all that achieves is the letter, without the depth or as you might think to say "scope".

This will become the more embarassing as time progresses - that Evolution has not found itself a suitable mate, with which to prolong and protract its lineage. Worse than that, it may be proved to be incapable of recognising mates in general, since there is no provision for a mating ritual, by which those foreign to Evolution can be enticed.

Masking Evolution, that it appear like other theories, which cohabit and coinform each other quite readily, would have limited success - success that could be much greater, if this fundamental understanding of bipartisan union were truly grasped. The problem is, that you cannot mask Evolution, without becoming distantiated from the rest of the population without that mask - to truly evolve Evolution, a common mask must be adopted, for which design is the most successful foundation (that the masks have something in common, even if the adaptations they represent do not). In reality then, only with a pair of masks, can mating succeed in varying the development of a new mask.

It can be said, that neither mask nor word supplant the fundamental attractiveness of a member of a given species, but the problem remains that the member of the species has to be recognized for being part of that species, or they will never be selected, in favour of a more familiar strength. Take Humanity: if all you stand on is that humanity exist somewhere in some fashion, but do not specify how, from mating standpoint you will never succeed a mate than can express the details of their fidelity to the human code. When Jesus comes back, it will not be in ignorance of the sins of mankind, so only our conviction will be in place to reckon with the generation that Jesus condescends to sire. This is not survival of the fittest, but "progeneration of the meekest". The word Jesus will use, will not stand alone in the face of mankind, but will complement the word in the one Jesus chooses as mate.

Jesus cannot create another generation, with just one word - that is the point: no one can.

All I see is another demonstration that you don't understand evolution, you don't understand linguistics and you don't understand philosophy. Have I missed something?

 

[Gottservant]

No.

This is not new: the Bible describes the beginning in pairs, three times.

It hurts your credibility, to say "Evolution, is its own beginning".

 

[Gottservant]

Its a double pendulum (the beginning): unpredictable.

For you to say you can predict the beginning of an "Evolution", means you are saying you were there in the beginning?

Someone who says they were there in the beginning, must have a memory of God - there is no other way Jesus could have said, what He said (on the basis of the beginning).

Someone who was there in the beginning, but had no memory of God,, has no way to justify giving the beginning a foundation on which to share the Word (even of that beginning).

 

[Gottservant]

This is what I am saying:

The beginning is unpredictable;

but the make-up of the beginning, enables us to predict what departure from the beginning is likely.

To an Evolutionist, this means: the point at which survival begins has more to do with the future, than anything that has been able to have changed in the past

This is basically a question of repetition vs repeatability

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Gottservant, please answer me on this: are you making an attempt to actually learn about evolution?

 

[Gottservant]

Gottservant, please answer me on this: are you making an attempt to actually learn about evolution?

I am trying to get a layman's understanding, of what to expect.

A layman, wants to know what to expect,, (in principle) so that he can work out what he will share (with his mate, if no one else).

Evolution to date, has ignored the layman; it has been assumed that all of Evolution will be believed (with no mention of what to expect) and that nothing in specific, needs to be shared (not even for a mate, by exception).

The alternative is Creation, which asserts that at the very minimum,, the layman should expect to remain a layman, if nothing else is said and that moreover, if the layman wishes to share anything,, he may share anything from anywhere from the beginning of the bible, to its end - it does not attempt to fail people, whose understanding,, is still formative (judge not that you be not judged).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am trying to get a layman's understanding, of what to expect.

I'm going to stop you right here.
All of the posts you make show that you aren't after a layman's understand of evolution, because a layman's understanding of evolution can easily be found on the internet with the minimum amount of searching.

Your posts show that you want the theory of evolution to talk about something it wasn't created to talk about nor makes an attempt to talk about: religion. All of your posts, ultimately, come down to religion. You want to talk metaphysical. Evolution and evolutionary theory talks biology.

Seriously, and I'm sick of saying this, but actually TRY and learn about evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolution to date, has ignored the layman; it has been assumed that all of Evolution will be believed (with no mention of what to expect) and that nothing in specific, needs to be shared (not even for a mate, by exception).

To follow on what "Warden in the Storm" wrote:

Please, please, please, at least learn what evolution is before starting anymore threads. We're not saying you have to believe it or think it is true, but most of your problems on this board come from not even knowing what evolution is and refusing to learn.

By not even knowing what you are talking about, you instantly destroy your argument. It would be like a non-christian debating christian theology by insisting that salvation is achieved by sacrificing lambs to Jesus. That's obviously nonsense, as are most of your claims about evolution. Both (my example and your evolution stuff) are incoherent because both claims betray a complete lack of understanding the opposing position. To argue against something you at least need to understand the basics of it. Knowing the basics of the opposing view doesn't somehow mean that you accept it.

Know what your are talking about. It will help with the discussion and do your self a real favor on this part of CF.

 

[pitabread]

but most of your problems on this board come from not even knowing what evolution is and refusing to learn.

IOW, creationists in a nutshell.

 

[Gottservant]

Survival of the survivors, with no intention of surviving.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Survival of the survivors, with no intention of surviving.

You do not understand evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

Survival of the survivors, with no intention of surviving.

Please stop.

 

[Gottservant]

Let me show you what I believe, from my perspective?

Jesus spoke words. When Jesus spoke words, He spoke the most important thing he could think of. Sometimes it was about sin, sometimes it was about righteousness, sometimes it was about Judgment. The whole point, is that sometimes, different kinds of words were important, in different ways. He did not harp on about His favourite theory.

As a disciple, I copy that model: I attempt to use the right word, at the right time - not the same words, over and over again,, as if it is right all the time (no matter how it is used - reader note). So when you say "use our words", I am confused by what you mean to be appropriate? I am not attempting to argue a word, even the Word of God, is right for all time (emphasis on "right")?

At the end, no one is right. No one can say, this or that word was what was meant to lead the rest. We are asked to discern, that which is appropriate, until we cease to need words in this world, altogether? I don't think you are facing up to that, are you (if you were, you would give some words more credence than others)?

When you think of the Golden Rule or the Extra Mile, how does that agree with Evolution? Why do you keep the words of faith, if you simply want to evolve? Even evolve those words (would they be any different if you evolved them, no? But that is the point?)?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're trying to mix religion with biology, and biology that you clearly do not understand.