• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

If the only thing that changes over your lifetime, is an interpretation of God: what "Evolves"?

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
The thing that annoys me, is that this is scientifically objectifiable thought experiment.

  1. Take any life.
  2. Make one change.
  3. Attribute the change to God.
  4. Check at the end of that life: to see what the difference was.
I am not saying "believe in God", I am not saying "change to a particular belief".

I am simply saying, if you can account for a specific change, then you will have defined something that is natural to the process, for which you may or may not believe in God (on the basis of).

It's cause and effect.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
You've been told many times that individuals don't evolve, populations evolve over many generations.

If you change some belief you hold, that is not evolution of any kind.

I will accept that: a population is more likely to evolve.

But that is precisely the point - why?

What is it that is common to both an individual surviving more and a population evolving more?

EDIT: I can even tell you how much more a population is likely to evolve, in a city it is 15% more likely.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Scottish Highlander

Reverend Pastor 1748
Jul 29, 2020
122
78
Rockingham, North Carolina
✟25,846.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Constitution
I enjoy that response, it's very perceptive. I used to be "broken" myself until I found God.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I will accept that: a population is more likely to evolve.

But that is precisely the point - why?

What is it that is common to both an individual surviving more and a population evolving more?

Once again you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding as to what evolution actually is.

A population is the only thing that can evolve. By definition, evolution is a change in a population over many generations. Individuals cannot evolve, as evolution is a change over many generations, and one single individual is just a single generation.

As has been explained to you many times now, there is a small amount of variation between individuals in a population. If one individual has some variation that makes it more likely to survive, that variation is likely to get passed to any babies it has. And so that variation will spread throughout the population over many generations.

EDIT: I can even tell you how much more a population is likely to evolve, in a city it is 15% more likely.

Care to show your working? Because there are so many different variables to be considered in that calculation that there is no one single answer that will apply in every situation.
 
Upvote 0

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,434
1,961
✟267,108.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
a population is more likely to evolve.

No, just no. Populations are evolving; not "more likely", as has been explained to you here:I give up: I'd rather go backwards, than forwards (in Evolution)
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You die with the genes you are born with. Evolution happens BETWEEN generations. An individual does not evolve. So what you think, feel, believe... does not matter. It's irrelevant.

Been a lot of years you've been at this and you still don't have even the slightest clue what you're talking about. That's disingenuous wouldn't you say? You can't state something is false if you don't know what it is.

 
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
I think I have hit on what it is that changes: proximity to niche.

Either you are in a selection pressure niche, or you would be advantaged by being in or out of one.

This is something that cannot be navigated, with as full a potential as possible, by chance (alone).

By communicating the relevance of a selection pressure niche, to a mate - you further increase your chances of pro-creating.

By withholding the detection of a niche, from a predator - you further increase your potential to evade that predator, with reference to the niche.

Without committing to regular change, in relation to your ability to navigate a specific niche, you might not develop the prowess necessary - to keep it in view, in concert with the bridge Evolution creates between niches.

Evolution is therefore, simply para-niche.

It cannot transpose the adaptation of one niche, to niches in general, without experience.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

While a species that is well adapted to a particular lifestyle - being in the niche, as you call it - is not likely to change much as long as the niche remains constant, being able to communicate that is fairly meaningless, since any potential mates will be part of the same population and thus already in the same niche already.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Some niches have better balances of selection pressures, than others - this leads to an Evolution of the most ideal niche.

The point is you don't experience a niche, that you cannot transpose from Evolution in general for.

An ideal niche can't evolve itself, if you don't have the experience for it, you will never be able to invent a pathway back, from one experience of a bridge, to another - all bridges between niches are the same Evolution (there is no way to evolve one specific context, of Evolutional bridging, experience or ideality - a excludingly hard saying).

Once you have isolated the niches you most need for Evolution, you can optimize for the best of them - but only proxy the idealism that a specific retaining of experience maintains for you.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic

I take your point.

However, I object to your introducing "population", without identifying the proponent that enables you to do so?

It would make more sense to say, you evolve attraction for a mate, by stepping outside it (the niche - let the reader note)? Remaining in the niche for a mate leads to in-breeding?
 
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Site Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,126
6,875
California
✟61,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private

Here you are describing a caricature.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Once again your lack of knowledge about evolution is showing.

I am talking about population because it is a population that evolves over many generations. You keep speaking as though it is an individual that evolves. This is wrong and you have been told it is wrong many times.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic

No I don't think an individual evolves, and I am concluding that when you say "E-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n": you must be referring to something that is already a variation of it.

I am responding, by design; you are objecting, by invoking something that seems to work like conceit - at a universally individual level.

If you understood, why it is that you cannot allow the individual to evolve: then you would have grounds to say "this 'conceit' still passes for strength" (that is, in enough contexts to remain sustained).

It seems to be beyond your current repose, that something you think applies to a population, might actually need to apply to every individual in that population before it can make sense to the stronger populations of it.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
A population, contains many variations (of populations).

When you say "the population evolves" you are only half-answering the question: which configuration of the population is chosen?

Evolution cannot decide on a mate's mate, unless there is some connection between that, and the leader of the group!
 
Upvote 0