If a lesser Evolution is enough, does the greater Evolution ever appear?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So this thread will relate a little to the mastery of Evolution and a little to the forgetting of Evolution: depending on how you handled it. The premise is this: if a lesser Evolution is enough, does the greater Evolution ever appear? It is little bit like asking if two donkeys are copies of each other, which one gets to the carrot first? But unlike the question of being copies, the question here is whether there is any distinction worth noting from an Evolutionary context: which Evolution itself can have made use of.

If the lesser Evolution is enough, does the greater Evolution appear. In other words, is there something that drives Evolution to be ready, where without being driven, the same Evolution would perish because it had no reason to believe, even in lesser Evolution. It's a bit like saying "you can have your cake and eat it too, if you eat it sometimes and not others". Without acknowledging that there is variance in the theory, actually there is no way for the theory to renew its old circuits.

A theory of Evolution that can renew its old circuits, is always going to survive better than something that has to reinvent its Evolution, every single time a new approach is needed. New is not better. New is an acknowledgement that the old, needs to be kept up. Without doing this, only backward Evolution is a contender, for the difference that remains.

In reality, the faster that a species remembers the past, the stronger its adaptations are: not because it had it right in the past, but because there was no Evolution in the past, to dictate a particular solution to the present, that may or may not have its bearings straight. You can not remedy a current dilemma with an old poison. This in turn is symbolic of the fact that all Evolutions get old, the act of Evolving does not itself renew the process of moving from Creation to a greater difference - it can only lash out, at a process that can never acknowledge the current, without doing away with the Evolution that cannot escape the old.

In time, this means that the old tether, joins with the old, to keep the old, what it was.

Praise God, that He is able to redeem us from this mire - by giving us renewal in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is aware of the entire past, knowing how to question God what was while keeping an eye on the future of Christ. If we trust whom he trusts, with Evolution, we will always have the more relevant adaptation. If we believe whom he believed, with Creation, we will always have more than survival, but abundant life - as Jesus promised. If we create whom he wanted us to create, we will always have the stronger offspring, for we have not cut them off from the past, they are able to use to determine what is strong and what is not.

Suppose then, that a part of your Evolution must die and a part must live on? What will survive: the Evolution that is copied with the death that killed it, or the Evolution that copied the death, with the freedom to outlive it as was desired??

If you are ready to die, you can have freedom to be ready to die, even!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet

 

[lambofgod43985889]

can you explain the Evolution in brief, i don't get it

 

[Gottservant]

Evolution as most people understand it, is the idea that when something dies, it has no connection with its past that enables it to be resurrected.

So you have two kinds of Evolution, one that says "creatures just die" and the other that says "creatures die, but they didn't want to have died".

The two Evolutions compete to explain why more dying happens than less, some of the time and those that have the correct interpretation, find it easier to justify avoiding death.

The reason I posted this, is because I can't really tell the difference: either you know it or you don't, but either way you don't have to be ruled by it (how you are going to die).

Jesus set out the fact that it is not necessarily your focus that allows you to evolve for longer, sometimes it is the words you are using (in fact most of the time it is the words you are using) - so you might be close to death and say less, and you would find that made it easier to survive; on the other hand, you might be far from death and say more, and you still would not immediately die, as long as you did it within reason. This is a choice; fundamentally, you need a choice, to make sense; without making sense, you cannot determine your own reasons for evolving more or later.

So you might meet a friend who does not have wisdom teeth, but you do and you are not therefore less evolved, but you are more likely to identify the pit falls of have wisdom teeth and so discover other pitfalls in general, like the danger of eating sugary food, whereas your friend with no wisdom teeth will not think about eating candy because his teeth are evolved and the rest of his teeth would get holes. That is lesser evolution becoming greater, without a direct connection to Evolution.

So how do you evaluate this? That is the difficulty. Suppose lots and lots of people were less evolved, but they stuck together, whereas someone who was more evolved had no reason to stick together with other less evolved people, would the lesser evolved not survive more? Or suppose that the more evolved stopped calling the lesser evolved "lesser evolved", would their joint strength not be greater? So you see it is a question of whether you know how to master what you believe, not a question of how you can change your starting circumstances - the pressure is to see the praise of God survive, I would say...

 

[lambofgod43985889]

Evolution as most people understand it, is the idea that when something dies, it has no connection with its past that enables it to be resurrected.

So you have two kinds of Evolution, one that says "creatures just die" and the other that says "creatures die, but they didn't want to have died".

The two Evolutions compete to explain why more dying happens than less, some of the time and those that have the correct interpretation, find it easier to justify avoiding death.

The reason I posted this, is because I can't really tell the difference: either you know it or you don't, but either way you don't have to be ruled by it (how you are going to die).

Jesus set out the fact that it is not necessarily your focus that allows you to evolve for longer, sometimes it is the words you are using (in fact most of the time it is the words you are using) - so you might be close to death and say less, and you would find that made it easier to survive; on the other hand, you might be far from death and say more, and you still would not immediately die, as long as you did it within reason. This is a choice; fundamentally, you need a choice, to make sense; without making sense, you cannot determine your own reasons for evolving more or later.

So you might meet a friend who does not have wisdom teeth, but you do and you are not therefore less evolved, but you are more likely to identify the pit falls of have wisdom teeth and so discover other pitfalls in general, like the danger of eating sugary food, whereas your friend with no wisdom teeth will not think about eating candy because his teeth are evolved and the rest of his teeth would get holes. That is lesser evolution becoming greater, without a direct connection to Evolution.

So how do you evaluate this? That is the difficulty. Suppose lots and lots of people were less evolved, but they stuck together, whereas someone who was more evolved had no reason to stick together with other less evolved people, would the lesser evolved not survive more? Or suppose that the more evolved stopped calling the lesser evolved "lesser evolved", would their joint strength not be greater? So you see it is a question of whether you know how to master what you believe, not a question of how you can change your starting circumstances - the pressure is to see the praise of God survive, I would say...

why you go around in the evolution concept, it's a fairy tale. Humans are not more or less evolved than others. There are only bad or good people, after death some go hell some heaven.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a lesser Evolution is enough, does the greater Evolution ever appear?

No.

Macroevolution is a joke.

 

[lasthero]

Evolution as most people understand it, is the idea that when something dies, it has no connection with its past that enables it to be resurrected.

Wrong.

Read a book.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution as most people understand it, is the idea that when something dies, it has no connection with its past that enables it to be resurrected.

No-one apart from you has ever said that about evolution. Ever.

 

[Yttrium]

Gottservant, I think it's safe to say that the only similarity between your version of evolution and the version that's in the textbooks is that they both use words to describe them.

 

[Skreeper]

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

 

[Sanoy]

I think the term you are using and the term we are thinking of are too different for us to understand. Perhaps it would be better to construct a term that fits your meaning and use it instead of evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

I think the problem for me, is that you can achieve Evolution by varying the rate of decay - nothing else.

I don't get why you need to observe the decay, to establish mutations, to establish adaptations - it's one simple step to compare two different rates of decay and eliminate the one with more mutations (so that in the end you can not only adapt but flourish).

I mean this is what it is to keep your Evolution in the game: you have to say, whatever the mutations might be, I am just going to adapt, and adapting for one reason, meaning I adapt more.

If you escalated the intensity of one rate of decay, compared to another, the more you could establish that mutations in one direction or another, were weaker.

If you did this neutrally, for presumed equal rates of decay and for presumed different rates of decay, you would have a measure for rates of decay in general.

If you had a measure of equal rates of decay in general, then you are beyond needing any specific mutation.

If you pass on the oblique to mutation, to the rest of your species, the species as a whole can adapt the more and the more in concert.

The more a species adapts in concert, the more the species' Evolution, will be tied to a specific expression of the species.

Admonishing species from straying from the species, establishes a number of alternatives to Evolution, back to removing mutations, on to advancing a way between adaptation and choice, or specifically advancing a particular adaptation - this is a focalizingly hard saying.

There is a big difference between random mutation and determined persistence - if I call that persistence, "something" competitive to Evolution, there is no real argument that Evolution is just a default position: that's all it really is.

I'm not say you can't focalize your Evolution, I'm saying you can!

 

[variant]

Gottservant, I think it's safe to say that the only similarity between your version of evolution and the version that's in the textbooks is that they both use words to describe them.

"Describe" is a bit generous for what were seeing going on here.