I give up: I'd rather go backwards, than forwards (in Evolution)

[Speedwell]

I think the elephant in the room, is basically this: I want to stop, evolving.

I just do not want to evolve.

I didn't ask, I didn't imply, I didn't encourage anyone to think of me as "Evolved".

Call it what you will, but call it something - other than "Evolution".

You, as an individual, are not evolving. Your offspring (if any) will not be identical to you. If they survive long enough to have offspring of their own, then evolution will have taken place. The difference between you and them is evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

Post #173:


Stating that the question is nonsensical is a perfectly valid answer. Because it was a nonsensical question.

That's not an answer: that's an accusation.

 

[Speedwell]

That's not an answer: that's an accusation.

It's not an accusation, just an observation. You really don't seem to know or even care very much about biological evolution and your questions have little or nothing to do with it. That makes them hard to answer in terms of biological evolution. Perhaps calling your questions "nonsensical" is a little strong. I would say instead that they were irrelevant to biological evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

Look at the progression from fish to ape to man, at what point are they evolved?

It's a basic question.

I'm not playing games, I'm just encouraging you to be constructive??

 

[Shemjaza]

Look at the progression from fish to ape to man, at what point are they evolved?

It's a basic question.

I'm not playing games, I'm just encouraging you to be constructive??

Always.

Every generation has undergone some evolution, so they are evolved.

Evolution doesn't have an end goal, so a human is evolved, an ape is evolved and a fish is evolved.

 

[Gottservant]

Always.

Every generation has undergone some evolution, so they are evolved.

Evolution doesn't have an end goal, so a human is evolved, an ape is evolved and a fish is evolved.

Yes but is it evolved, before or after the transition to the next?

Is the fish evolved before or after being an ape?
Is the ape evolved before or after being a man?

If I am meditating, I say "I am enlightened, once I have reached nirvana"
If I am meditating, I don't say "I am enlightened before I have reached nirvana" because nirvana is a psychological state that is necessary first (before I can enlighten my consciousness)

My contention would be, that it varies depending on the creature and that there is therefore no ubiquitous state of "evolution" - as is borne out by the observation, that humanity is not the (same) goal of every living species

For you to say "it is the same for every creature" is disingenuous (and I daresay that is why you are finding it so hard to answer)

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes but is it evolved, before or after the transition to the next?

Is the fish evolved before or after being an ape?
Is the ape evolved before or after being a man?

Both. "Evolved" is just a description that can be applied to anywhere alone the chain of generations.

If I am meditating, I say "I am enlightened, once I have reached nirvana"
If I am meditating, I don't say "I am enlightened before I have reached nirvana" because nirvana is a psychological state that is necessary first (before I can enlighten my consciousness)

But evolution doesn't work like that, so it doesn't apply.

My contention would be, that it varies depending on the creature and that there is therefore no ubiquitous state of "evolution" - as is borne out by the observation, that humanity is not the (same) goal of every living species

There is no goal of evolution, so of course not.

For example if I pour a glass of water onto my plant and a glass of water onto my dog, they have both been wet, but they are not the same thing.

A human and an ant have both evolved... but they are not the same.

For you to say "it is the same for every creature" is disingenuous (and I daresay that is why you are finding it so hard to answer)

I'm finding it trivial to answer. All life has evolved, just not in the same way.

 

[Gottservant]

Both. "Evolved" is just a description that can be applied to anywhere alon[g] the chain of generations.

You can't say both, it has to be one or the other. You are inventing a bridge where there isn't one, by saying "one way of saying both, is the same as another" - its not correct.

But evolution doesn't work like that, so it doesn't apply.

It may not work like that (that was an example), but there is a way that it is compelled to work.

There is no goal of evolution, so of course not.

No, let me be clear: the selection pressure which brought man to manhood, is not the same selection pressure for every creature. You saying "both one way and both another" does not make sense.

For example if I pour a glass of water onto my plant and a glass of water onto my dog, they have both been wet, but they are not the same thing.

I feel like you are now making my point, back to me. But you are not doing so from the objective standpoint of "one or the other".

A human and an ant have both evolved... but they are not the same.

No they are not (the same), but again: the queen is more evolved "after" she has been queen, because once she is the queen she gives of the scent that defines the ant's nest's trail. The rest of the ants are more evolved before they start to hunt for the nest, because it is their job to come back to the nest (with food).

I'm finding it trivial to answer. All life has evolved, just not in the same way.

Ok, so why do you use "the one word" to describe things that are evidentially differentiated?

 

[Shemjaza]

You can't say both, it has to be one or the other. You are inventing a bridge where there isn't one, by saying "one way of saying both, is the same as another" - its not correct.

But it can be both.

Every species has already evolved... and later on its descendants will have evolved some more...

It may not work like that (that was an example), but there is a way that it is compelled to work.

Your example implied a process that led to a final state, which is not applicable to evolution.

No, let me be clear: the selection pressure which brought man to manhood, is not the same selection pressure for every creature. You saying "both one way and both another" does not make sense.

Different selection pressure, different outcome: same process.

This is also a partial explanation for speciation.

Ancestral bears split into two groups, one on the tundra pf north America and another in the frozen wastes of the far north. Eventually the subtly different pressures led to the two species of grizzly bears and polar bears.

I feel like you are now making my point, back to me. But you are not doing so from the objective standpoint of "one or the other".

I don't understand what you mean by this statement.

No they are not (the same), but again: the queen is more evolved "after" she has been queen, because once she is the queen she gives of the scent that defines the ant's nest's trail. The rest of the ants are more evolved before they start to hunt for the nest, because it is their job to come back to the nest (with food).

Now you have made a mistake. The Queen is not more evolved after she becomes queen.

Evolution doesn't happen to individual animals during their life. They are born/hatched just as evolved as they will ever be.

Ok, so why do you use "the one word" to describe things that are evidentially differentiated?

We use the one word because it is the one process.

Slipping off a table onto a nice soft bed or tumbling from a window of a high rise are both falling, just with very different outcomes.

If I pour water on you with a bucket, or squirt you with a hose, it doesn't change that I wet you.

 

[Gottservant]

But it can be both.

"Both" implies choice - which side of the choice do you mean?

I don't want to keep asking you to be decisive, it should be an instinct (that you have).

Every species has already evolved... and later on its descendants will have evolved some more...

It's so arbitrary, it's banal. How can you adjudicate, foundation here, difference there - with nothing uniting the two?

Your example implied a process that led to a final state, which is not applicable to evolution.

The example was a process that required interpretation - that's all.

Different selection pressure, different outcome: same process.

But from whose perspective? The meaning of Evolution is slipping through your fingers, because you refuse to acknowledge even the slightest weighting, in favour of readiness (to begin with).

This is also a partial explanation for speciation.

Ancestral bears split into two groups, one on the tundra pf north America and another in the frozen wastes of the far north. Eventually the subtly different pressures led to the two species of grizzly bears and polar bears.


I don't understand what you mean by this statement.

You understand bears becoming different bears when the environment is ready, but you do not understand that someone who believes in Evolution also has to be ready - before they can believe it?

Now you have made a mistake. The Queen is not more evolved after she becomes queen.

If the Queen was not more evolved, the nest would not heed her scent and the nest would die.

Your whole point is that Evolution makes the process of change important, but when command of that process is achieved, you turn a blind eye!

Evolution doesn't happen to individual animals during their life. They are born/hatched just as evolved as they will ever be.


We use the one word because it is the one process.

Slipping off a table onto a nice soft bed or tumbling from a window of a high rise are both falling, just with very different outcomes.

If I pour water on you with a bucket, or squirt you with a hose, it doesn't change that I wet you.

Except that I am not wet, until you do one or the other!

I therefore have a choice, do I prepare to dodge the bucket which is easier, or do I prepare to outrun the hose which is lighter?

There is a strong correlation between my readiness to have a child, and that child's readiness to be obedient - if you want Evolution to grow stronger, you don't limit it being expressed between one generation and another!

The point is that even greater Evolution, at some point has to condescend to the generations that come after it, that not everything that was possible was gained - but that in humility, more could be had.

You're not trying to make my life hard - I get that - you're trying to be consistent and invite me to be consistent myself - which is fine - the problem is I am aware of the bias that is required, whereas you are insisting that the consistency itself is enough: it is not.

 

[Gottservant]

I think the thing is, that there is a gap between knowing that species bloom into variety and calling one's own bloom more important, that needs a concept of its own.

I should be more mindful of the bloom of others, for the sake of inspiration, taking careful note of the greater differentiation (for my kind), but also the greater compression of survival responses into my kind - free pressure leading to greater differentiation, but more consistent design leading to greater compression.

That I cannot move beyond that, is God's doing - I am not angry at Him for that: He is protecting me, by striking the balance, that my being more than evolved and being more greatly Created, can embrace (it's not a mistake, I don't need to go back and reconsider my designation again, I am actually want He wanted, as He made me).

 

[Gottservant]

If the Queen was not more evolved, the nest would not heed her scent and the nest would die.

I think the thing is, that Evolution is relative. I said "the Queen is more evolved" because to the nest, she is. But to the Queen, her soldier ants are more evolved, since they protect her - it is the same concept, from a different perspective. And to the soldier ants, the ants are more evolved, since they do the work. This creates a working nest.

What makes it difficult, is when you say "I am only going to focus on what is most evolved, from my perspective"? If you do that, Evolution dies in the hind.

It really does take a different concept, altogether - I am not sure what it should be and as much as I can, I give other people who believe what they do, the choice as to what it should be (because from where I stand, it is the giving of choice, that is most important). The point being, positioning Evolution as achievable, is the flip side of agency and has that much importance. You can't theorize the development of Man, without acknowledging in some way: his agency.

It may be relative, it may be later rather than earlier, but it is not simply Evolution once again!

 

[Shemjaza]

"Both" implies choice - which side of the choice do you mean?

No, it doesn't.

If you show me a cheetah and a lion and ask me "which is a cat?", I will simply answer both.

I don't want to keep asking you to be decisive, it should be an instinct (that you have).

Except that you don't seem to understand the response.

The process that turned a swimming tube into a fish was evolution.

The process that turned a fish into a man was evolution.

Different situation, different time period, different selection pressures... but the same system.

It's so arbitrary, it's banal. How can you adjudicate, foundation here, difference there - with nothing uniting the two?

I'm getting confused by your phrasing here... can you repeat this with all the parties defined?

The example was a process that required interpretation - that's all.

But it was in use and in structure different to the way evolution is defined, so it wasn't a useful example.

But from whose perspective? The meaning of Evolution is slipping through your fingers, because you refuse to acknowledge even the slightest weighting, in favour of readiness (to begin with).

That just isn't supported by the evidence.

You understand bears becoming different bears when the environment is ready, but you do not understand that someone who believes in Evolution also has to be ready - before they can believe it?

That isn't what happens. It's just that the varieties of bears that are more successful will have more offspring statistically.

The readiness of someone to believe anything is totally irrelevant to the theory or process of evolution.

If the Queen was not more evolved, the nest would not heed her scent and the nest would die.

Your whole point is that Evolution makes the process of change important, but when command of that process is achieved, you turn a blind eye!

Not at all.

Evolution is about the genetic changes over generations... not any given change in the course of an individuals life time.

Except that I am not wet, until you do one or the other!

I therefore have a choice, do I prepare to dodge the bucket which is easier, or do I prepare to outrun the hose which is lighter?

What you were talking about is "evolved", not might evolve.

It's an example of how the same term can be applied to the same process, even if the specific situations are different.

There is a strong correlation between my readiness to have a child, and that child's readiness to be obedient - if you want Evolution to grow stronger, you don't limit it being expressed between one generation and another!

That is exactly what evolution is. There is no point changing the definition to apply to any other change... that just makes communication harder.

The point is that even greater Evolution, at some point has to condescend to the generations that come after it, that not everything that was possible was gained - but that in humility, more could be had.

Greater Evolution is not a sensible or meaningful phrase. Condescension and humility are completely irrelevant to the process of evolution.

You're not trying to make my life hard - I get that - you're trying to be consistent and invite me to be consistent myself - which is fine - the problem is I am aware of the bias that is required, whereas you are insisting that the consistency itself is enough: it is not.

Consistency makes communication easier.

The bias is merely the acceptance of evidence in the physical world.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think the thing is, that Evolution is relative. I said "the Queen is more evolved" because to the nest, she is. But to the Queen, her soldier ants are more evolved, since they protect her - it is the same concept, from a different perspective. And to the soldier ants, the ants are more evolved, since they do the work. This creates a working nest.

What makes it difficult, is when you say "I am only going to focus on what is most evolved, from my perspective"? If you do that, Evolution dies in the hind.

It really does take a different concept, altogether - I am not sure what it should be and as much as I can, I give other people who believe what they do, the choice as to what it should be (because from where I stand, it is the giving of choice, that is most important). The point being, positioning Evolution as achievable, is the flip side of agency and has that much importance. You can't theorize the development of Man, without acknowledging in some way: his agency.

It may be relative, it may be later rather than earlier, but it is not simply Evolution once again!

What you are describing is not evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

I think what it may be, is deliberately putting yourself down the "evolved" chain.

Like "I did not come from an ape, an ape is what will come from me".

Whatever the concept for that is...

(it's not simply "devolution")

 

[VirOptimus]

I think what it may be, is deliberately putting yourself down the "evolved" chain.

Like "I did not come from an ape, an ape is what will come from me".

Whatever the concept for that is...

(it's not simply "devolution")

All humans are apes by definition.

 

[Gottservant]

No, it doesn't.

If you show me a cheetah and a lion and ask me "which is a cat?", I will simply answer both.

Except that the correct question for the context is not "which is a cat" which is absolute and cannot change, but "which is more cat?" which is relative to the cat's ability to hunt.

Except that you don't seem to understand the response.

Watch what happens next.. you'll see the problem:

The process that turned a swimming tube into a fish was evolution.

The process that turned a fish into a man was evolution.

Different situation, different time period, different selection pressures... but the same system.

At what point, the fish evolved?

At what point, the man evolved?

That the fish was evolved because the Man was there, is disingenuous of what the Man was to the fish.
That the Man was evolved because other men were there, is disingenuous of what the Man was to other men.

Does the fish give up being a fish, because of the Man or because he hates the fish he is?
Does the man give up being a man, because of the men or because he hates the Man he is?

I am happy to speak in relative or absolute terms, for your sake - do not do me the disservice of saying "one day you may be unrecognisable to yourself, as you are now" that will never happen! I am always going to be able to recognise who and what I am!

I'm getting confused by your phrasing here... can you repeat this with all the parties defined?

What do you mean by "parties defined"? You are saying to foundation "foundation - yes, from my perspective", to change "change - yes, change as adds to the past, starting with me" but no connection between foundation and what starts to change?

But it was in use and in structure different to the way evolution is defined, so it wasn't a useful example.

It's just a fact: you seem to want nirvana, without enlightenment.

That just isn't supported by the evidence.

So you don't have to be ready to evolve? How did you find out about Evolution then? It happened by accident?

That isn't what happens. It's just that the varieties of bears that are more successful will have more offspring statistically.

The readiness of someone to believe anything is totally irrelevant to the theory or process of evolution.

[ant queens]

Not at all.

Evolution is about the genetic changes over generations... not any given change in the course of an individuals life time.

So you think that the success of the Queen, has no effect on subsequent queens, even though the future of the nest hinges on her seed?

Something is beginning to stink, here.

What you were talking about is "evolved", not might evolve.

It's an example of how the same term can be applied to the same process, even if the specific situations are different.

So it saves you time, but it doesn't allow you to "differentiate"? You have to keep using the same term ("Evolution"), or it will die?

That is exactly what evolution is. There is no point changing the definition to apply to any other change... that just makes communication harder.



Greater Evolution is not a sensible or meaningful phrase. Condescension and humility are completely irrelevant to the process of evolution.



Consistency makes communication easier.

The bias is merely the acceptance of evidence in the physical world.

Except that you are trying to "rule bias out" without acknowledging that a certain degree of bias is required!

I keep pointing to the timeline, you give me and you keep saying "the whole thing is consistent" where if the whole thing was that consistent, you would be dead! You need bias to be identifiable, in principle, arguing with me that you could discern the bias no matter which part of history was the subject, is exactly the point! Please, define it - at some point along the trajectory you are trying to validate or have validated.

This is the smallest possible element of change, for your theory - without it, your theory is dead (as you might say "dead in the water").

 

[Gottservant]

All humans are apes by definition.

So it is more likely, that I will create an ape? Is that true?

 

[VirOptimus]

So it is more likely, that I will create an ape? Is that true?

Does not compute.

 

[Gottservant]

I am more designed, just not before most people.

That is invitation to observe, which takes time and impetus.

Evolution, like that, requires consequence and bias.

You can be evolved, just not more than everyone.