If "Evolving", is adding to your most needed adaptations; eliminating one of your least needed is?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So simple question, really:

if adding to your most needed adaptations, is "Evolving"; what is eliminating one of your least needed?

The point being, you cannot simply be adapted for every possible eventuation - in principle, you need to start giving up adaptations, that are not suited to the entrance into a new paradigm?

I guess, I finally worked out, what the choice, to Evolution was. Good thing I didn't give up, because people said I was "chasing red herrings".

It's a simple Evolution of time: the longer you minimize your out-of-context adaptations, the more finely tuned your instinct will be, in the current one (the current context).

What you can't tell me, is that the opposite does not apply, since it is the gestalt, of the same theory.

Looking forward, to your reasoning.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The point being, you cannot simply be adapted for every possible eventuation - in principle, you need to start giving up adaptations, that are not suited to the entrance into a new paradigm?

Correct. This is why some individuals in the population that lack suitable adaptations to survive in a particular environment will fail to reproduce or reproduce less, reducing the inheritance of that trait to future generations.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I guess, I finally worked out, what the choice, to Evolution was. Good thing I didn't give up, because people said I was "chasing red herrings".

It's a simple Evolution of time: the longer you minimize your out-of-context adaptations, the more finely tuned your instinct will be, in the current one (the current context).

What you can't tell me, is that the opposite does not apply, since it is the gestalt, of the same theory.

And now you're off the rails again (after such a promising start)...

1. There are no "choices" in evolution. It is Nature that selects. ("Chooses", but with out conscious intent.)

2. Instinct isn't relevant.

 

[Gottservant]

And now you're off the rails again (after such a promising start)...

1. There are no "choices" in evolution. It is Nature that selects. ("Chooses", but with out conscious intent.)

2. Instinct isn't relevant.

That's not what I said (you have started to presume the volume of a population attempting to adapt, scales with the difficulty of adapting - without any additional parameters: I would like to see you at least attempt to justify that [specifically how it can be done without additional parameters]).

You are taking evolution and saying the same impulse affects positive and negative Evolution at the same time - if that were true the odds of it being correct, would be exponentially more unlikely.

Think again, about what I said: how much you emerge into a new paradigm, is directly affected by your confidence in that paradigm - positively or negatively.

I refuse to substantiate your "2."

 

[SkyWriting]

The point being, you cannot simply be adapted for every possible eventuation....

Or we are perfect. I can prove it.


Matthew 5:48
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

John 17:23
I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

James 1:2-4
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Song of Solomon 4:7
You are altogether beautiful, my love; there is no flaw in you.

Hebrews 9:14
How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The point being, you cannot simply be adapted for every possible eventuation - in principle, you need to start giving up adaptations, that are not suited to the entrance into a new paradigm?

I guess, I finally worked out, what the choice, to Evolution was. Good thing I didn't give up, because people said I was "chasing red herrings".

It's a simple Evolution of time: the longer you minimize your out-of-context adaptations, the more finely tuned your instinct will be, in the current one (the current context).

What you can't tell me, is that the opposite does not apply, since it is the gestalt, of the same theory.

Looking forward, to your reasoning.

Gottservant, seriously, why do you do nothing to actually learn about evolution? Why do you keep asking this hair-brained questions and not go and actually learn about evolution?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's not what I said (you have started to presume the volume of a population attempting to adapt, scales with the difficulty of adapting - without any additional parameters: I would like to see you at least attempt to justify that [specifically how it can be done without additional parameters]).

And yet I talked *nothing* about volumes of populations, difficulty in adaptation at all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are taking evolution and saying the same impulse affects positive and negative Evolution at the same time - if that were true the odds of it being correct, would be exponentially more unlikely.

Think again, about what I said: how much you emerge into a new paradigm, is directly affected by your confidence in that paradigm - positively or negatively.

Again these are not the things I'm saying. Nothing about "positive" and "negative" evolution was stated by me. I'm not even sure that those are valid concepts (and if they are they don't have those names).

Paradigm and confidence are not evolutoinary bio terms to my knowledge and you are using them like some bad business success book with titles like "maximizing you success" and "the art of the deal".

I don't do evolutionary biology, so I don't know the mathematical models they use. (But if I was an evolutionist, I'd almost certainly be working on the mathematical side of things.)

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The answer to the question you pose in the poll is not listed in the choices of answers for the poll. The answers you gave to choose from are "not even wrong."

it's all evolution. Whether traits are lost or gained is not defined as a constraint of the theory. It's still evolution. This is one reason the whole "evolution can't produce new information" argument is, in addition to being false, not relevant to whether evolution happens because it is not a requirements of evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The answer to the question you pose in the poll is not listed in the choices of answers for the poll. The answers you gave to choose from are "not even wrong."

it's all evolution. Whether traits are lost or gained is not defined as a constraint of the theory. It's still evolution. This is one reason the whole "evolution can't produce new information" argument is, in addition to being false, not relevant to whether evolution happens because it is not a requirements of evolution.

Oh, brother! I didn't even see the poll. It's like a whole new wellspring of wrong.

 

[Gottservant]

Gottservant, seriously, why do you do nothing to actually learn about evolution? Why do you keep asking this hair-brained questions and not go and actually learn about evolution?

There is no "negative evolution" in literature.

As I have said, I am interested in the layman's interpretation of the theory.

Philosophically, a inconsistent theory is better addressed, with reason.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is no "negative evolution" in literature.

As I have said, I am interested in the layman's interpretation of the theory.

Philosophically, a inconsistent theory is better addressed, with reason.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my question. And if your idea of a layman's interpretation of the theory of evolution is all of these threads you create, then you are WAY off base.

There is a massive wealth and depth of stuff on evolution that can easily be understood, even for stuff for school-children too, so why do you not take the time to look up those sources and read them?

 

[Gottservant]

And yet I talked *nothing* about volumes of populations, difficulty in adaptation at all.

But these are crucial details.

What is more the subtext of these things, implies that you are referring to them: populations evolving, imply certain numbers of populations; difficult adapting, implies certain mutations.

I am just talking about your own theory, as you yourself bear it out?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My work, has been to work out how an aspect of Gentile faith (Evolution) can be grafted on (to a Jewish vine).

You keep trying to approach evolution like it's a religious faith. It's not. It's a scientific fact.

 

[Gottservant]

Again these are not the things I'm saying. Nothing about "positive" and "negative" evolution was stated by me. I'm not even sure that those are valid concepts (and if they are they don't have those names).

Paradigm and confidence are not evolutoinary bio terms to my knowledge and you are using them like some bad business success book with titles like "maximizing you success" and "the art of the deal".

I don't do evolutionary biology, so I don't know the mathematical models they use. (But if I was an evolutionist, I'd almost certainly be working on the mathematical side of things.)

It's just a balanced assessment of the theory: no need to be a scholar.

If I sound like a used car salesman, it is because I am applying nuance - without which Evolution would sound very dry and unsustainable?

The point being, at this stage, that there is no probable way of preserving every adaptation: you simply must give up the notion of "onward and upward" Evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

ven God, talks about grafting the Gentiles, onto the Jewish vine.

My work, has been to work out how an aspect of Gentile faith (Evolution) can be grafted on (to a Jewish vine).

With all due respect, I think if it were allowed to remain dormant, we would have world war three, in little time.

Evolution isn't "Gentile". It is a science, not a "thing for non-Jews". (Hopefully, there are anti-semites in science.) This is a complete category error.

(and of course science isn't a faith either)

 

[Gottservant]

The answer to the question you pose in the poll is not listed in the choices of answers for the poll. The answers you gave to choose from are "not even wrong."

it's all evolution. Whether traits are lost or gained is not defined as a constraint of the theory. It's still evolution. This is one reason the whole "evolution can't produce new information" argument is, in addition to being false, not relevant to whether evolution happens because it is not a requirements of evolution.

Because you say it is not relevant, your hubris remains.

I have identified that no adaptation lasts forever, on its own merits - and you have proceeded to say you would rather evolve as if there were no upper limit (most justified).

Justify your keeping specific mutations, if you won't agree with my purview - I am not against your reasoning that Evolution is a strong motivator, you just have yet to prove it does consistently with whether more or less is required.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But these are crucial details.

What is more the subtext of these things, implies that you are referring to them: populations evolving, imply certain numbers of populations; difficult adapting, implies certain mutations.

I am just talking about your own theory, as you yourself bear it out?

Evolution isn't *my* theory. I didn't create it. I haven't expanded or otherwise modified it. I'm just trying to discuss it with you, but that might be an impossible task.

 

[Gottservant]

That has absolutely nothing to do with my question. And if your idea of a layman's interpretation of the theory of evolution is all of these threads you create, then you are WAY off base.

There is a massive wealth and depth of stuff on evolution that can easily be understood, even for stuff for school-children too, so why do you not take the time to look up those sources and read them?

Look, I have reasoned with you, been rejected by you, treated as if there is nothing sensible but the tiniest of foundations for me to focus on...

...and I have defined something theoretical, that expands the horizon of your theory!

All I am saying is, "in the measure that you think you understand 'Evolution' scientifically, apply the science to the contrary scenario".

I even left open the expectation, that it be identified as you see fit - as a gesture of goodwill?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have identified that no adaptation lasts forever, on its own merits - and you have proceeded to say you would rather evolve as if there were no upper limit (most justified).

What do you mean by merit? Adaptations in evolution occur and are selected for because they help an animal survive in the environment it is in, thus meaning that adaptation is passed down the genetic line because it keeps the animal's young alive.
What form of 'merit' are you referring to?