• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How do we make sustainable environments? Is "Evolution" always the most applicable?

Amittai

baggage apostate
Aug 20, 2006
1,426
491
✟48,680.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Perhaps in concert with "sustainable environments", perhaps not: I have at least understood the mechanism, by which you are projecting "Evolution" - Eigenution, is the act of creating links, to later call "Evolved".

The foundation of Eigenution, is simply that you can make links of everything (but destroyed letter - let the reader beware), whether you finally put it down to progress, in the Evolutionary sense, or not?

What remains to be seen, is if effectively stopping, having made more links, specifically makes it harder to destroy the letter, or not?

The point being, that attributing links to progress, is not in itself Evolution, but in itself a functioning, for the sake of it (which may or may not be Evolution depending on how close to Evolution one makes them).

'Evolution' is a favourite word from the early 19th century (Hegel's period). People then didn't understand contingency and imagined physics and biology embody 'progress' rather than merely some sort of series of contingencies. They idealised, reified and nominalised. The sentimentalist Richard Dawkins still holds to 'progress', but Gould didn't. Is this unsuitedness of the term 'evolution' what you mean by 'destroying the letter'?
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟146,326.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Stability plus genetic drift, is what occurs when other contingency doesn't occur as well. Survival of the fittest is the result of organisms being already adapted or modified to be adapted, rather than its cause.

What point are you trying to make, and how does it relate to my post that you quoted?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,594
8,919
52
✟381,516.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Hi there,

So what I have worked out, is that the meme "Evolution" requires certain environmental conditions, in order to be sustainable. There has to be a stable culture, curiosity, repeatability and translateability. Without these things, Evolution is topical, but not relevant; interesting but not substantive; repeated, but not in an orderly fashion; translateable but not finally. In this sense, Evolution is attempting to become a lexicon, without validating the milieu in which it operates.

When Creationists say "God created the Heavens, and the Earth" they are agreeing with the Godly validation of the basis on which knowledge of these things (and more) are able to begin. It is a context, that establishes certain things will be found to reflect others, in as much as they can relate to others (specifically Heaven and Earth). Nowhere, does Creation say "all these things are true, as long as you keep one 'eye' closed". Connections are welcomed, because they further the understanding of what it is that God is able to use, to strengthen His Creation.

When Evolutionists say "populations evolve, not individuals" what they are saying is "look at Creation through only one 'eye'", in other words "we do not understand the culture in which Evolution develops, therefore we rule it out". But if Jesus returned and said "I don't believe in the individual" He would be laughed off Earth, for good! Everytime an Evolutionist says "'one' eye is enough" they are building up contempt that will one day be judged! The point is, that they should be studying the means by which Evolution is communicated, and how it is that by that communication a steady rate of cognition is achieved, in which one could be said to be in the Evolutionary "zone".

Not every "zone" is propitious to Evolution's propagation - not merely because of hostility to being objectified, in one way or another. A sloth for example, will relate to his Evolution at a much slower pace than other creatures. A giraffe may expect great groups of Evolution, to develop over time - so that there is a choice when it comes to trees, as to how tall they grow. This is the Evolutionary milieu that accommodates Evolution in certain ways, ways that in time give rise to a more coherent Evolutionary whole - welcoming species and their differences into a more and more unified expression of co-dependence.

From the point at which you work out: how it is you work things out - what is opened up to you is that creation is more dependent on itself, than any subset of inclusion can be on its own - this is the Nash Equilibrium for Nature. We are dependent on each other and can only reach beyond ourselves when part of the greater whole. This is not a context to be pitied, for what escapes it, but rather a possibility of reinclusion, where one Evolution out of the total possible would be exhausted and exhausted in principle because of refusal to integrate with the greater whole. You are in effect a greater target if you don't work together, even if what you are working with: is Evolution.

An Evolution that includes every possibility, is one that God can approve of (selah).
None of that makes any sense. Are you okay?
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,201
10,092
✟281,903.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Survival of the fittest to survive gives rise to the consequence of further adaptation vis a vis resizing and filling new niches in ecology.
That's illogical. In instances of long lasting stable niches (of which there are many in the geologic record) the fittest will have reached (practically) a peak level of fitness for that niche. Further adaptation will be both unnecessary and impossible.
If you are saying at that point new niches become available, then no. New niches become available when environments change, not when they are stable. So, your statement can be true some of the time, but not all the time.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,023
7,401
31
Wales
✟423,918.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
We were created perfect...then we 'evolved'. :(

I'm going to preempt the conversation that will take place:
Someone will ask OWG for evidence.
OWG will reply with 'the Bible'.
Someone will say that's not evidence.
OWG will go on another tangent about science and how he doesn't accept it because of a personal thing that has zero evidence or importance.
Then the thread will terribly spiral out of control again because of OldWiseGuy being OldWiseGuy.

It's oddly endearing in it's own way.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm going to preempt the conversation that will take place:
Someone will ask OWG for evidence.
OWG will reply with 'the Bible'.
Someone will say that's not evidence.
OWG will go on another tangent about science and how he doesn't accept it because of a personal thing that has zero evidence or importance.
Then the thread will terribly spiral out of control again because of OldWiseGuy being OldWiseGuy.

It's oddly endearing in it's own way.

Note the sarcasm quotes around 'evolve'. What I meant was that, as Mark Twain quipped, "We were made a little lower than the angels, and have been getting lower ever since."
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,023
7,401
31
Wales
✟423,918.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Note the sarcasm quotes around 'evolve'. What I meant was that, as Mark Twain quipped, "We were made a little lower than the angels, and have been getting lower ever since."

Don't care. Your views on and knowledge of evolution are noted and are disregarded.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Don't care. Your views on and knowledge of evolution are noted and are disregarded.

I'll put my creationist ideas about survival and progress of the human species up against any evolutionist, atheist, or scientist any day. Isn't that what it's all about? ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,571
16,271
55
USA
✟409,413.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Stability plus genetic drift, is what occurs when other contingency doesn't occur as well. Survival of the fittest is the result of organisms being already adapted or modified to be adapted, rather than its cause.

Yes different sizes on different land masses is a manifestation of the normal stabilizing principle without added contingency. Resizing has also occurred relatively rapidly following the elimination of some species from the ecosphere due to major contingencies.

Natural processes of selection are in two halves: both big and small mutations, and eliminations. The latter is then followed by resizing and suchlike. (That might make three halves.)

Are your posts written by an algorithm that strings together somewhat relevant phrases and words? 'Cause your posts don't make no sense. (I know it's a "gottservant" thread, but that's no excuse.)
 
Upvote 0

Amittai

baggage apostate
Aug 20, 2006
1,426
491
✟48,680.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
That's illogical. In instances of long lasting stable niches (of which there are many in the geologic record) the fittest will have reached (practically) a peak level of fitness for that niche. Further adaptation will be both unnecessary and impossible.
If you are saying at that point new niches become available, then no. New niches become available when environments change, not when they are stable. So, your statement can be true some of the time, but not all the time.

Yes, new niches only happen when or if they happen (contingency), and there is a sort of macro-micro mutation process (among any species that happened to survive the disappearance of the old niches) to shape fitness to it and not beyond it.

The "application" of micromutation differs by kind of creature: for example moths change more easily from black to white to black again, than I expect tigers do.

Gould for one proposed what I would call macro-macro mutations prior to the Cambrian event (which is what he mainly wrote about). Thus it happened that some of the species that existed afterwards bore little resemblance to some that had existed long before. Then again Gould worked in a conventional diachronic scheme.

Some anti-evolutionists only concentrate on micro-evolution, and some evolutionists deny very major contingencies.

Many evolutionists fail to highlight the three kinds of phases in mutations.

Everybody neglects the benefit of keeping open multiple ideas towards multiple hypotheses, all the time.

Most of the confusion around what pre-Darwinists called evolution stems from its poor presenting as well as conceiving. I like most have had to struggle extremely. Many scientists such as those attending Santa Fe Institute Proceedings XIX couldn't grasp evolution.

I am constantly trying to re-paraphrase and to enhance my conceptions. Thank you!
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,023
7,401
31
Wales
✟423,918.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I'll put my creationist ideas about survival and progress of the human species up against any evolutionist, atheist, or scientist any day. Isn't that what it's all about? ;)

So it'd be like Pomeranian barking against a brick wall. Pointless noise.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟146,326.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'll put my creationist ideas about survival and progress of the human species up against any evolutionist, atheist, or scientist any day. Isn't that what it's all about? ;)

This would be more impressive if you could demonstrate that you actually understand ToE first.

Yes, you are prepared to put your creationist ideas about survival and progress of the human species up against any evolutionist etc. However, depending on the nature of your ideas, this might be a good thing, or a very bad thing.

Imagine if I thought that houses and buildings were held together by magic, and that the main function of security guards was to make a prayer to a deity each day so that the buildings don't just crumble into rubble due to lack of magic. If I then bullishly said that I'll put that idea up against any builder or architect, then would that be a good thing for me to do? Or would I be foolishly doubling down on stupidity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes, you are prepared to put your creationist ideas about survival and progress of the human species up against any evolutionist etc. However, depending on the nature of your ideas, this might be a good thing, or a very bad thing.

I'll take that as a positive response.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,201
10,092
✟281,903.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I'll take that as a positive response.
Such a misunderstanding on your part would be consistent with your approach to evolution and discussions about evolution.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
My post posed a question, and my interpretation of your reply is that you dodged that question.

You posed rhetorical questions. If you ask a specific question I'll be happy to answer it.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Such a misunderstanding on your part would be consistent with your approach to evolution and discussions about evolution.

That was the only part of his post that in any way reflected my statement.
 
Upvote 0