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

[Gottservant]

Making no sense, whatsoever, as per usual.
Evolution and adaptation are not 'fads'. They are biological responses to changes in environments and pressures on an organic population.

Seriously: LEARN THE SCIENCE!

Evolutions are fads, if they are not life critical: I want you to understand this.

Learn to reason?

I will help you as best as I can, but you really have to drop this idea that "I have studied Evolution completely" (while the whole time you are making unsubstantiated claims - such as "monkeys appearing to respond to the same selection pressure as Neanderthals means means one changed into the other").

Don't you get it? I am going to argue with you to the end of my life (not because I hate you, but because you leave me no choice), if you true to push me into believing that my integrity in God is somehow in question??

And what do I find, when I do argue with you? That you can't handle even a simple "inversion" (of positive to negative)??

When you say "Evolution and adaptation are not 'fads'.", you are exercising negative pressure to try and change the definition of a 'fad' - if you kept going, you might stop wanting me to have the Evolution you think you have? But what would it prove (I mean that really, what would you prove, if you kept me from developing the Evolution you have?)??

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolutions are fads, if they are not life critical: I want you to understand this.

Learn to reason?

I will help you as best as I can, but you really have to drop this idea that "I have studied Evolution completely" (while the whole time you are making unsubstantiated claims - such as "monkeys appearing to respond to the same selection pressure as Neanderthals means means one changed into the other").

Don't you get it? I am going to argue with you to the end of my life (not because I hate you, but because you leave me no choice), if you true to push me into believing that my integrity in God is somehow in question??

And what do I find, when I do argue with you? That you can't handle even a simple "inversion" (of positive to negative)??

When you say "Evolution and adaptation are not 'fads'.", you are exercising negative pressure to try and change the definition of a 'fad' - if you kept going, you might stop wanting me to have the Evolution you think you have? But what would it prove (I mean that really, what would you prove, if you kept me from developing the Evolution you have?)??

I'm not changing or exercising anything. What you are doing is, once again, showing that you know nothing about evolution and you have absolutely no desire to learn anything about it so you can keep up these pseudo-religious and insipid rants.

Adaptations are not fads. Fads are not adapatations.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not changing or exercising anything. What you are doing is, once again, showing that you know nothing about evolution and you have absolutely no desire to learn anything about it so you can keep up these pseudo-religious and insipid rants.

Adaptations are not fads. Fads are not adapatations.

You basically prove nothing and complain 'these things need to be more distinct' - when that is just the beginning of what I am trying to say.

If an adaptation doesn't manifestly become life-critical, it is ultimately good for nothing.

"No let me have every possible adaptation!" - is that you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You basically prove nothing and complain 'these things need to be more distinct' - when that is just the beginning of what I am trying to say.

If an adaptation doesn't manifestly become life-critical, it is ultimately good for nothing.

"No let me have every possible adaptation!" - is that you?

I'm not trying to prove anything. You're the one who is making all these ridiculous claims and then do nothing to back them or learn anything from what people tell you.

Yes, not all adaptations are 'life-critical'. Those are called passive adaptations. Eye colour in humans is a good example because they don't really change much about the person (although there are minor things they can change).

And stop putting words in my mouth, especially false and nonsensical things like what you wrote.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not trying to prove anything. You're the one who is making all these ridiculous claims and then do nothing to back them or learn anything from what people tell you.

Yes, not all adaptations are 'life-critical'. Those are called passive adaptations. Eye colour in humans is a good example because they don't really change much about the person (although there are minor things they can change).

And stop putting words in my mouth, especially false and nonsensical things like what you wrote.

Well, duh...

believe now?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, duh...

believe now?

Do you understand the concept of specialization and what that means for animals?

 

[Gottservant]

Do you understand the concept of specialization and what that means for animals?

one minute its adaptation

then next minute its specialization

is it concretion next?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

one minute its adaptation

then next minute its specialization

is it concretion next?

Oy vey... see, this is why people have a problem with you. You clearly do not know about evolution, then you act like you're the grand poobah of scientific thought on evolution.
Specialization: Biology. the adaptation of an organism or organ to a special function or environment.

 

[Gottservant]

Oy vey... see, this is why people have a problem with you. You clearly do not know about evolution, then you act like you're the grand poobah of scientific thought on evolution.
Specialization: Biology. the adaptation of an organism or organ to a special function or environment.

Oh, so Evolution is special?

but qualifying how is not??

and I am a poobah for clarifying?? ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, so Evolution is special?

but qualifying how is not??

and I am a poobah for clarifying?? ?

Evolution is just evolution. It just is.

You're not qualifying anything and you're certainly not clarifying anything, and I said you act like the grand poobah, not that you are the grand poobah.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A "fad" is any adaptation, that is not life critical.

Look up "monkey ladder experiment". I may have confused 'rewarding with a banana', with 'punishing for a banana' - sorry.

The point is the same, there is a cultural shift, which in other circumstances would be irrelevant (if the monkeys were released from the experiment into the wild: they would need to exercise negative Evolution).

Once again, your comment is incomprehensible - and to 'exercise negative Evolution' is incoherent ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Gottservant]

Once again, your comment is incomprehensible - and to 'exercise negative Evolution' is incoherent ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Jacob experimented with changing animal DNA, in order to gain the upper hand over oppressors (in his life) - I am not suggesting anything that God does not have the power to empower.

I think its sad that Evolutionists claim they know how adaptation works, but that they are not accountable for making choices on the basis of that knowledge.

What if you adapted your children, as gifts to others without the capacity to have children of their own? Are you saying you would not be accountable in the slightest, to give those children the best chance they could have to survive?

 

[Shemjaza]

As an analogy for Gottservant.

Think of a species trait as being like an individuals possession.

I have a big heavy cloak, it's great if I'm on a snowy mountain... but instead of being on a snowy mountain, I'm trying to chase someone on the beach.

My purpose is to chase this person, so i drop my heavy cloak and chase after them.

So I've lost my cloak, but overall I have gained an advantage.

It's the same as when losing a genetic trait is an evolutionary advantage for a species. It is not negative evolution, it's positive because they have an advantage that statistically increases their chances of survival.

 

[Shemjaza]

Jacob experimented with changing animal DNA, in order to gain the upper hand over oppressors (in his life) - I am not suggesting anything that God does not have the power to empower.

I think its sad that Evolutionists claim they know how adaptation works, but that they are not accountable for making choices on the basis of that knowledge.

What if you adapted your children, as gifts to others without the capacity to have children of their own? Are you saying you would not be accountable in the slightest, to give those children the best chance they could have to survive?

Jacob wasn't experimenting with with changing animal DNA... that was just a supernatural miracle.

Evolution is not a choice made by individuals. We can't currently choose our children's DNA.

 

[Gottservant]

Jacob wasn't experimenting with with changing animal DNA... that was just a supernatural miracle.

Evolution is not a choice made by individuals. We can't currently choose our children's DNA.

If you are my friend, you are going to have different children, than if you are my enemy.

I believe in declaring everything, but you don't want to declare things that would make you look bad.

If you become my friend, you will start declaring things you previously did not want to: this will result in different expressions of the same offspring.

 

[Gottservant]

As an analogy for Gottservant.

Think of a species trait as being like an individuals possession.

I have a big heavy cloak, it's great if I'm on a snowy mountain... but instead of being on a snowy mountain, I'm trying to chase someone on the beach.

My purpose is to chase this person, so i drop my heavy cloak and chase after them.

So I've lost my cloak, but overall I have gained an advantage.

It's the same as when losing a genetic trait is an evolutionary advantage for a species. It is not negative evolution, it's positive because they have an advantage that statistically increases their chances of survival.

"It's not negative, it just means something is taken away (which is negative)"

Sorry, your comment is too loaded to process.

Try to assert negativity, without negating negativity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"It's not negative, it just means something is taken away (which is negative)"

Sorry, your comment is too loaded to process.

Try to assert negativity, without negating negativity.

No, he's talking fact. To lose something can also be to gain something, which is what happens in evolution a lot. Humans have less hairy bodies than other apes, but it means that we have increased stamina since we don't have to worry about overheating as other apes would.

To quote Marcus Aurelius, "Loss is simply change, and change is nature's delight."

 

[Gottservant]

No, he's talking fact. To lose something can also be to gain something, which is what happens in evolution a lot. Humans have less hairy bodies than other apes, but it means that we have increased stamina since we don't have to worry about overheating as other apes would.

To quote Marcus Aurelius, "Loss is simply change, and change is nature's delight."

But if you have already designated Evolution a positive attribute, how can you make its opposite the same designation (and not negative)? It doesn't make sense - it's disingenuous!

Ask yourself what the most objective (scientific) approach would be: to attribute both positive and negative traits to the same word, thus limiting what can be observed; or to attribute positive to positive and negative to negative, thus broadening what can be observed.

We may move on from this subject, but I assure you I will not be forgetting the past wrongs of Evolution, over a conflation of expectations, that only add to the wrongs of Evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But i you have already designated Evolution a positive attribute, how can you make its opposite the same designation (and not negative)? It doesn't make sense - it's disingenuous!

Ask yourself what the most objective (scientific) approach would be: to attribute both positive and negative traits to the same word, thus limiting what can be observed; or to attribute positive to positive and negative to negative, thus broadening what can be observed.

We may move on from this subject, but I assure you I will not be forgetting the past wrongs of Evolution, over a conflation of expectations, that only add to the wrongs of Evolution.

Balderdash. Complete and utter balderdash.

You know nothing about evolution nor science.

 

[Gottservant]

Balderdash. Complete and utter balderdash.

You know nothing about evolution nor science.

If I am instructing a new driver, how to manage a car: I say 'left' is left, 'right' is right. I don't say "south" is left heading west, "north" is left heading east. Both may be true, but the function of the words in their original state, are enough.

I am not trying to take your "Evolution" away from you, I am saying take it as far as make sense - and when we get there, I will help you get further, depending on what we agree on, at that point.

You seem to hold to Evolution, like its your ivory tower, or something - where only people with the right expectations are allowed 'in': it doesn't help your cause at all, that everyone who comes past your door, has to be told where they ought to stand, but aren't given a choice.

If you don't want to believe "Creation", that's fine - Jesus mentioned it twice (in relation to the world); He will not hold it against you if you basically remember everything else, but not that - He wants you to have words and the wisdom of those words, something that will save your life, in the end. I get that you want to be an authority on something and if you are able to be an authority on the human condition, all the better: but just think what the viability of what you remember will be, if no-one can offer their own interpretation or differ as to what they believe the wisest choice to be.