If selection pressure waned and waxed, such that the species started again: what'd you do better?

[Gottservant]

Accepting evolution is some mix of accepting the evidence and trusting the source of the analysis.

Right, so doing that consistently creates a "reflex" of "what"?

Perceptiveness?

Calmness?

You would say that it agrees with Buddhism?

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, it could - and so could the mentality that corrected it, which is my point

But the corrections had nothing to do with evolution.

You corrected it, by giving it a context (wind) and an intent (moving).

No, the implications of both wind and motion were already present in the meme.

Also, motion does not imply intent.

I merely removed the nonsensical idea that air has the ability to make decisions.

EDIT: Note that the meme you changed it to, now has utility in connection with serving as a warning about what may be excess "wind" (because you put it in connection with "truth")

No, the concern about excess wind was already present in the original with the body language of the faces and the phrase "Oh no".

Now look at Evolution: what context is their for an ape to wish he was a man? And what intention of man would their be, to incorporate having been an ape, in his being more a man?

All totally irrelevant to evolution.

Don't just scramble my words, as you are beginning to be aware: even things with independent identities need to be justified or brought into relationship with "justice".

Can you explain what you mean here? I honestly do not understand.

IT doesn't change what you do to justify, it - great: what is it you do (that has an evident connection with Evolution)?

My ability to understand or explain something is not relevant to its reality.

Individuals have part of a population. If that population has Evolution, an individual has a part of that Evolution. It's just one for one.

In that context, then you can do nothing to affect "your evolution" to any relevant degree. You beliefs, theologies, scientific understandings, or even survival won't meaningfully change evolution.

It's relevant to statistical genetic changes across the entire population, not the actions of an individual.

As a similar example a single individual driving 1km/h slower on the way to work won't meaningfully change the traffic.

An individual is an "agent", an agent is either justified or put in a relationship with justice. You may have to take a gamble, but not with your "agency" or the "justice of it" (on its own).

Honestly don't understand what you mean.

So there is just a mass of stuff that you don't do anything about, because you believe in Evolution?

You are appealing to the "gravity" of the "rarity of believing" (rare when compared with what it applies to or consider what you could have believed instead)?

No, I am just saying that it is not relevant to evolution.

The whole point of this thread is the scientific repetition, of what you call "Evolution" - that is, one would assume in a laboratory setting.

I am not trying to prove that the laboratory will evolve, if I am using the laboratory in a way that can already be used to find what it was that it was built for.

Can't you understand the utility of not believing "Evolution" in every circumstance, where a simpler concept could function more effectively uninterfered with?

Evolution is accepted because it is the best explanation of the evidence. That's it.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about simple life forms living in labs... or studies of long extinct species found in the rocks... or even simulations of life-like patters that use genetic analogues.

Right, so doing that consistently creates a "reflex" of "what"?

Perceptiveness?

Calmness?

You would say that it agrees with Buddhism?

No, I would not say it agrees with Buddhism.

The principles of science are based on the reliability of testing and investigation as a way of understanding the physical world. There has never been discovered a way to scientifically investigate the supernatural, so it can't be investigated scientifically.

 

[Gottservant]

I think there is a problem of a standard, here:

I am not asking what you "think you believe" from day to day, whether it changes or doesn't.

I am asking what you profess, at which time and in relation to what - first principally, then as pertains to a specific species (not amalgamations of them).

To me, the theory of Evolution is "half-full", in the sense that there are many attributes to a species that can be tweaked from generation to generation - that tweaking does not change arbitrarily from one species to the next, but comes to exemplify what any one member of the species can achieve (in certain circumstances one way, and in other circumstances another way).

Jesus, as I have come to understand Him, forgives all the mistakes a species may make, to the third and fourth generation (an expression that means "completely"), which if repented of makes it easy and light for strength that was already in place to take hold (hold that was lost while one sinned) - beyond this, is foolish to consider is meant by God, to be His express Will and indeed childish to add to, if you do not know what you are doing (and you fundamentally don't know what you are doing, if you are cross-pollinating between one species and another). The point being, essentially is that Jesus will forgive to the full extent of the law; you will not be disadvantaged by seeking forgiveness from Jesus for the sins of your species.

 

[Gottservant]

But the corrections had nothing to do with evolution.

Why not? Isn't that what I asked for?

No, the implications of both wind and motion were already present in the meme.

But they obscured the truth!

Also, motion does not imply intent.

It is a selection of the total possible movement - but my aim is not really to discuss intent specifically, just whether it has been honoured theoretically.

Now look at Evolution: what context is their for an ape to wish he was a man? And what intention of man would their be, to incorporate having been an ape, in his being more a man?

All totally irrelevant to evolution.

And back we are to square one: you denying agency has relevant properties to a theory about agents and their choices.

Can you explain what you mean here? I honestly do not understand.

You can't just have a theory, you need a number of cases that show how you justify it (for the sake of what you implement, in principle).

My ability to understand or explain something is not relevant to its reality.

Jesus said a similar thing: "Heaven does not come by observation" (from memory)

In that context, then you can do nothing to affect "your evolution" to any relevant degree. You beliefs, theologies, scientific understandings, or even survival won't meaningfully change evolution.

It's relevant to statistical genetic changes across the entire population, not the actions of an individual.

As a similar example a single individual driving 1km/h slower on the way to work won't meaningfully change the traffic.

Honestly don't understand what you mean.

Just reiterating that justice is relevant one way or the other.

No, I am just saying that it is not relevant to evolution.

Evolution is accepted because it is the best explanation of the evidence. That's it.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about simple life forms living in labs... or studies of long extinct species found in the rocks... or even simulations of life-like patters that use genetic analogues.

You keep saying "that's it" when there is more to be said, that is, of justice. It is my contention that if you knew how you were putting forth that Evolution could be done justice to, you would not be as enthusiastic about believing in it - you have a sort of blind enthusiasm about how universal it is or something.

No, I would not say it agrees with Buddhism.

But the perceptiveness, and the calm, you see those in yourself?

The principles of science are based on the reliability of testing and investigation as a way of understanding the physical world. There has never been discovered a way to scientifically investigate the supernatural, so it can't be investigated scientifically.

And I have asked what you would do if Evolution scientifically repeated itself, and you have not answered?

 

[Shemjaza]

Why not? Isn't that what I asked for?

Yes, but it isn't possible because they are not relevant topics.

But they obscured the truth!

Not really. The only issue that obscured the truth was the implication of choice and agency where there was none.

It is a selection of the total possible movement - but my aim is not really to discuss intent specifically, just whether it has been honoured theoretically.

I can't be, theoretically or literally. Intent implies consciousness... if there is no consciousness, there can be no intent.

And back we are to square one: you denying agency has relevant properties to a theory about agents and their choices.

It's a matter of scale. The actions or beliefs of an individual do not have any meaningful bearing on the survival and nature of an entire species on an evolutionary timescale.

You can't just have a theory, you need a number of cases that show how you justify it (for the sake of what you implement, in principle).

If I follow you, then there are multitudes of examples that are evidence for evolution occurring in history and still occurring today.

Jesus said a similar thing: "Heaven does not come by observation" (from memory)

Fair enough.

Just reiterating that justice is relevant one way or the other.

How?

You keep saying "that's it" when there is more to be said, that is, of justice. It is my contention that if you knew how you were putting forth that Evolution could be done justice to, you would not be as enthusiastic about believing in it - you have a sort of blind enthusiasm about how universal it is or something.

As I said earlier, how I feel about evolution and how it makes me feel are totally irrelivant to if it is true or not.

But the perceptiveness, and the calm, you see those in yourself?

I guess, but I hardly have any kind of sense of oneness nor do I seek to abandon attachments as I understand Buddhism recommends.

(I think this is probably a completely pointless thread of discussion. A Christian and an atheist are not the appropriate people to discuss the attributes of Buddhist philosophy and metaphysics.)

And I have asked what you would do if Evolution scientifically repeated itself, and you have not answered?

Specifically what do you mean when you say "repeated itself"?

As a general trend we see similar body plans and structures evolving to deal with similar environmental pressures... but the nature of evolution means that genetically, exactly identical forms developing is for all practical purposes impossible.

So you could have Tasmanian tigers and Timber wolves developing from two different families of mammals... but you would never see human identical Homo sapiens developing from another set of animals.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't know why exactly, but this meme spoke to me about how confused you guys must be that Evolution applies to absolutely anything under the Sun.

 

[Gottservant]

If I follow you, then there are multitudes of examples that are evidence for evolution occurring in history and still occurring today.

No no, what do you do? It's no good being a professor of theory, without being a laborer of application?

EDIT: The faith helps the needy, the poor, the destitute.

Specifically what do you mean when you say "repeated itself"?

I mean if the necessary selection pressures reverted and began again. Scientifically, its not an impossibility.

As a general trend we see similar body plans and structures evolving to deal with similar environmental pressures... but the nature of evolution means that genetically, exactly identical forms developing is for all practical purposes impossible.

So you could have Tasmanian tigers and Timber wolves developing from two different families of mammals... but you would never see human identical Homo sapiens developing from another set of animals.

I get the feeling you think the cocoon is irrelevant to the moth, as long as the light is on - it might be irrelevant for a while, but the right conditions coming, that moth is going to hatch eggs, that had better respect the cocoon or else.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You always criticize me for attempting to link agency with evolution: here's a meme, that shows exactly what that flaw is (and its not something I say!)

Image

We criticize you attempting to link agency with evolution because evolution is not something that has agency. It is not a thing that does something. It is merely the name that we give to the process of changing alleles in a population of biological beings in response to a change in their environment.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know why exactly, but this meme spoke to me about how confused you guys must be that Evolution applies to absolutely anything under the Sun.

Says the person who claims that Evolution DOES apply to everything under the sun and can't be bothered to actually learn the science.

Really, Gottservant, why don't you want to learn the science? Is it too hard for you? Do you not understand how biology works?

 

[Gottservant]

Says the person who claims that Evolution DOES apply to everything under the sun and can't be bothered to actually learn the science.

Really, Gottservant, why don't you want to learn the science? Is it too hard for you? Do you not understand how biology works?

I want to reappropriate, the information behind Evolution.

I think the faith could learn something from Evolution, if it just had the right information.

I want to learn, don't get me wrong - but I'd rather start with a layman's understanding and go from there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I want to reappropriate, the information behind Evolution.

I think the faith could learn something from Evolution, if it just had the right information.

I want to learn, don't get me wrong - but I'd rather start with a layman's understanding and go from there.

But that's the problem: you don't seem to want to learn. I and others have been giving you a very layman's understanding of what evolution is: a change in alleles of a population of biological beings in response to a changing environment, but you flat out ignore that and try and twist evolution into something it isn't.
Evolution isn't about morality, ethics, philosophy. It isn't a religion or a belief set. It is a simple a scientific description for a biological process.

And you can't even reappropriate that because it isn't something that can be reappropriate in the first place because it's not something of yours to reclaim.

 

[Gottservant]

Says the person who claims that Evolution DOES apply to everything under the sun and can't be bothered to actually learn the science.

Really, Gottservant, why don't you want to learn the science? Is it too hard for you? Do you not understand how biology works?

The more and more I ask for something simple, from you, the more it becomes apparent that you are keeping up an act, and little else?

It's a square peg, that fits somewhere, but you don't want to talk about squareness.

I mean squareness doesn't even make you happy! If you see a square hole, you're like "oh yes, of course - squareology, it was always going to be!"

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't know why exactly, but this meme spoke to me about how confused you guys must be that Evolution applies to absolutely anything under the Sun.

False. Completely False.

I have repeatedly tried to explain to you in this very thread that evolution ONLY applies to populations of reproducing living things over multiple generations.

You are the one who repeatedly tries to treat evolution as a theology, possession or choice.

No no, what do you do? It's no good being a professor of theory, without being a laborer of application?

Fossil remains.
Patterns of genetic relatedness.
Real time adaptations in labs.
Applied use of evolutionary principles in other fields.

There are many, many practical uses and demonstrations of evolution.

EDIT: The faith helps the needy, the poor, the destitute.

I fail to see how that is relevant to the evidence for evolution.

I mean if the necessary selection pressures reverted and began again. Scientifically, its not an impossibility.

It is basically impossible.

Changing species takes thousands of tiny steps... the exact steps going in reverse then coming forward again in the same way is so vanishingly unlikely that it can be ignored as a possibility.

It is certainly possible for two very similar species being put under similar pressures will develop allong similar lines... but it's no guarantee. There are a multitude of serviceable solutions that life has found for the many possibilities in the environment.

I get the feeling you think the cocoon is irrelevant to the moth, as long as the light is on - it might be irrelevant for a while, but the right conditions coming, that moth is going to hatch eggs, that had better respect the cocoon or else.

Nonsense.

Moths aren't sapient. Respect isn't even a valid concept.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The more and more I ask for something simple, from you, the more it becomes apparent that you are keeping up an act, and little else?

It's a square peg, that fits somewhere, but you don't want to talk about squareness.

I mean squareness doesn't even make you happy! If you see a square hole, you're like "oh yes, of course - squareology, it was always going to be!"

I have explained it to you in the simplest ways I can, and yet your the one who keeps making it complicated, not I.

 

[Gottservant]

Maybe you need a separate theory, for when "Evolution" works and when it doesn't?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe you need a separate theory, for when "Evolution" works and when it doesn't?

Maybe you need to actually make an attempt to learn what you're talking about. If you don't want to learn, and it's very clear to anyone that you don't, then that's on you.

 

[Gottservant]

Put it this way:

Say selection pressures create an ape and then moves on to create a man (from the ape), but the selection pressure goes back to favouring the ape (not the man)...

...is the ape that comes from the man (that came from the ape) easier and lighter to facilitate? Or does it depend on whether the second ape helps the first (ape) be an ape (anyway)?

I mean there really is a case, that experience has an influence on adaptation, isn't there?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Put it this way:

Say selection pressures create an ape and then moves on to create a man (from the ape), but the selection pressure goes back to favouring the ape (not the man)...

...is the ape that comes from the man (that came from the ape) easier and lighter to facilitate? Or does it depend on whether the second ape helps the first (ape) be an ape (anyway)?

I mean there really is a case, that experience has an influence on adaptation, isn't there?

That's not how selection pressures work. Selection pressures do not 'favour' one population or another, selection pressures just act. It's a continuous thing. Stop thinking of evolution of something with intent or agency, it doesn't have either. It's just an action, not a being.

 

[Gottservant]

Maybe you need to actually make an attempt to learn what you're talking about. If you don't want to learn, and it's very clear to anyone that you don't, then that's on you.

I think that's harsh.

Do I berate you that you haven't memorized scripture, while discussing things on a Christian forum? Do I say "why aren't you learning scripture?"

Have a bit of a chill - sit and think "What is it that I wish the average person would believe about Evolution? Do I understand it, from their perspective?"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that's harsh.

Do I berate you that you haven't memorized scripture, while discussing things on a Christian forum? Do I say "why aren't you learning scripture?"

Have a bit of a chill - sit and think "What is it that I wish the average person would believe about Evolution? Do I understand it, from their perspective?"

No, I'm being honest because every interaction we have, I see nothing that hints that you have even made an attempt to learn. You keep coming out with these random, nonsensical comments and questions about what you think evolution is, and then when you're told that you're wrong and are told what evolution is, you either double down on your nonsense or ignore those corrections. It does not lead me to believe that you want to learn about evolution.

It's really that simple.