Hi there,
So it seems evident that there is a massive unknown, here: what if there are no "new" selection pressures? What if the driving force behind change, is answered? Would you say 'no, Evolution needs to invent selection pressures, to provoke itself with'? What would be the sense of that? Can you see that metaphysically, Evolution is wide open on the blind-side that nothing would then remain strong to protect Evolution from universal decay? And sudden decline from the peak (achieved by struggling with mortality, not beating it)? The peak is only the peak, if you defend it.
The creativity of this, is that there might be multiple selection pressures which we could create, to our benefit: sort of like introducing the concept of "saving money" to a child, when they could, with the same upbringing, simply spend the money? This is the question of agency, right? Do we yield to pressures against or despite us, or do we trust in the eventuality of it all - creating culture around sustaining adaptation, whatever that adaptation might be. I mean when do we begin to take ownership of it - it's a like a leaky hole in the side of the theory, that life can escape you, while you are hoping it will change: how much can you afford to let go, before you realise "I'm never getting more out of this, than I already imagined might be missing?"?
I mean think about it: why not flex our Evolutional muscle? We could go back to monkey, then human, then monkey, then human, then monkey, then human - and our humanity would only ever get greater, with one small caveat, both monkey and human might be a less pressured set than was thought and the pursuit of it, a danger to both or more. This is not remarkable, I actually mean 'what is the process'? Why is it that you permit one change after another, to the history of humanity, without going back to any of them - which is a complete deficit of the imagination? Can you see there are more links being questioned here, than is productive?
I am happy to let it rest, if you insist that my Creation was reliant on a desire to be One with Christ, as it were, from the outside - finally finding my way in, through faith in His Death on the Cross. I mean you wouldn't call multiple interpretations of the "Cross" an 'Evolution', why suppose at all that something more obscure would solve it? You don't have the head, for multiple gospels, why ask for it to be prolonged? Leave me out of it, I don't want to be a human at all, if you can't get that idea through your head, that I am not the victim, but the peak of the only Evolution you are ever going to get - the One in Jesus!
Give it some thought: how many changes is it going to take, before you are overwhelmed with the desire to just be the way you were - making the whole question of the past simpler, not more complex. You have it within you, to be decisive - and not bristle against the idea that you are not surrounded by apes as much as you think you are.
Word.
So it seems evident that there is a massive unknown, here: what if there are no "new" selection pressures? What if the driving force behind change, is answered? Would you say 'no, Evolution needs to invent selection pressures, to provoke itself with'? What would be the sense of that? Can you see that metaphysically, Evolution is wide open on the blind-side that nothing would then remain strong to protect Evolution from universal decay? And sudden decline from the peak (achieved by struggling with mortality, not beating it)? The peak is only the peak, if you defend it.
The creativity of this, is that there might be multiple selection pressures which we could create, to our benefit: sort of like introducing the concept of "saving money" to a child, when they could, with the same upbringing, simply spend the money? This is the question of agency, right? Do we yield to pressures against or despite us, or do we trust in the eventuality of it all - creating culture around sustaining adaptation, whatever that adaptation might be. I mean when do we begin to take ownership of it - it's a like a leaky hole in the side of the theory, that life can escape you, while you are hoping it will change: how much can you afford to let go, before you realise "I'm never getting more out of this, than I already imagined might be missing?"?
I mean think about it: why not flex our Evolutional muscle? We could go back to monkey, then human, then monkey, then human, then monkey, then human - and our humanity would only ever get greater, with one small caveat, both monkey and human might be a less pressured set than was thought and the pursuit of it, a danger to both or more. This is not remarkable, I actually mean 'what is the process'? Why is it that you permit one change after another, to the history of humanity, without going back to any of them - which is a complete deficit of the imagination? Can you see there are more links being questioned here, than is productive?
I am happy to let it rest, if you insist that my Creation was reliant on a desire to be One with Christ, as it were, from the outside - finally finding my way in, through faith in His Death on the Cross. I mean you wouldn't call multiple interpretations of the "Cross" an 'Evolution', why suppose at all that something more obscure would solve it? You don't have the head, for multiple gospels, why ask for it to be prolonged? Leave me out of it, I don't want to be a human at all, if you can't get that idea through your head, that I am not the victim, but the peak of the only Evolution you are ever going to get - the One in Jesus!
Give it some thought: how many changes is it going to take, before you are overwhelmed with the desire to just be the way you were - making the whole question of the past simpler, not more complex. You have it within you, to be decisive - and not bristle against the idea that you are not surrounded by apes as much as you think you are.
Word.
