Hi there,
So I have come full circle, with regard to how I understand Evolution. It could be, could it not, that Evolutional pressures, could create a situation, where a species is capable of surviving in more environments than it needs to? Like you have a caterpillar that is capable of chameleon-like camouflage/ or a giraffe able to develop horns or hoofs that quash predatorial advances? The point is, these creatures would be ready for change, above and beyond, the selection pressures that would come against them.
I have used animal examples, to avoid confusing the abundance of adaptability with a specific foreknowledge of what the environment requires - the point is: there are adaptations that pro-genesis could feed a creature, above and beyond what the environment requires. Evolution could evolve itself, were this the case: Evolution could develop an excess of adaptations and then apply selection pressures to those clusters of adaptations. If Evolution were actually possible, surely this is how Evolution would work?
I am not being facetious, just applying the same logic to the whole that Evolutionists believe applies to the part. There is a way to interpret this, as negative logic, but I wonder whether you are interested in the development itself, given that you cannot establish the negative without exposing Evolution to a harsher criticism than itself productivity can really justify. Basically I am asking you, that if you want to come up with an objection, that you imagine the subject working first and then weigh up whether you want to distinguish Evolution more, relative to the abundance we may imagine could here work - the emphasis on a working distinction being the guiding rule, as you may guess.
I don't know, I feel like the cat is out of the bag, with this one - there's no real argument that if Evolution works, it should work more and possibly on itself.
So I have come full circle, with regard to how I understand Evolution. It could be, could it not, that Evolutional pressures, could create a situation, where a species is capable of surviving in more environments than it needs to? Like you have a caterpillar that is capable of chameleon-like camouflage/ or a giraffe able to develop horns or hoofs that quash predatorial advances? The point is, these creatures would be ready for change, above and beyond, the selection pressures that would come against them.
I have used animal examples, to avoid confusing the abundance of adaptability with a specific foreknowledge of what the environment requires - the point is: there are adaptations that pro-genesis could feed a creature, above and beyond what the environment requires. Evolution could evolve itself, were this the case: Evolution could develop an excess of adaptations and then apply selection pressures to those clusters of adaptations. If Evolution were actually possible, surely this is how Evolution would work?
I am not being facetious, just applying the same logic to the whole that Evolutionists believe applies to the part. There is a way to interpret this, as negative logic, but I wonder whether you are interested in the development itself, given that you cannot establish the negative without exposing Evolution to a harsher criticism than itself productivity can really justify. Basically I am asking you, that if you want to come up with an objection, that you imagine the subject working first and then weigh up whether you want to distinguish Evolution more, relative to the abundance we may imagine could here work - the emphasis on a working distinction being the guiding rule, as you may guess.
I don't know, I feel like the cat is out of the bag, with this one - there's no real argument that if Evolution works, it should work more and possibly on itself.