Important interpretation? : does having been a monkey, help all future "evolutions" in a monkey way?

[Bungle_Bear]

Using a blog as evidence, seriously???????

Yes, seriously. Links to all the relevant articles, interviews, rebuttals etc are in the blog. Is your best comeback "I can't be bothered checking what you've given me"?

You asked for evidence, I have provided it. Handwaving is really just a refusal to accept that creationist organisations are knowingly, and even openly, dishonest.

 

[Hans Blaster]

AND is there any evidence to confirm that allegation?

Good grief, get informed or get conned. Try searching for:

"discovery institute" liars

and do some learning on your own.

 

[disciple Clint]

The wedge document is pretty clear evidence of underhanded tactics.

Wikipedia is not accepted as real evidence, it is often nothing more that a compilation of opinions.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes, seriously. Links to all the relevant articles, interviews, rebuttals etc are in the blog. Is your best comeback "I can't be bothered checking what you've given me"?

You asked for evidence, I have provided it. Handwaving is really just a refusal to accept that creationist organisations are knowingly, and even openly, dishonest.

Ok so no evidence available from a reliable source.

 

[disciple Clint]

Good grief, get informed or get conned. Try searching for:

"discovery institute" liars

and do some learning on your own.

I am willing to review any evidence that might provide something worth learning.

 

[Shemjaza]

Wikipedia is not accepted as real evidence, it is often nothing more that a compilation of opinions.

If it were the primary source, you would have a point. Wikipedia is a convenient source of introductory material, it also requires sources for it's content.

Do you dispute the existence or veracity of wedge strategy document?

 

[disciple Clint]

If it were the primary source, you would have a point. Wikipedia is a convenient source of introductory material, it also requires sources for it's content.

Do you dispute the existence or veracity of wedge strategy document?

is there any generally acceptable evidence that confirms it and that it applies to the case at hand?

 

[Shemjaza]

is there any generally acceptable evidence that confirms it and that it applies to the case at hand?

If you read through the article it was brought up in court.

It demonstrates that the Discovery Institute planned to circumvent application of the US Constitution by masquerading as a secular organisation with secular motivations in order to present intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

A fish remembers how to follow the river.

A fish out of water does not forget that breathing underwater ends with the water.

Much like fish and water: if we come from apes, why do we not remember ape like things?

 

[Shemjaza]

A fish remembers how to follow the river.

A fish out of water does not forget that breathing underwater ends with the water.

Much like fish and water: if we come from apes, why do we not remember ape like things?

In the fish example you are describing a single individual fish with experience of being in and out of a river.

With the apes you are describing separate individuals
thousands of generations apart.

I'm not aware of any evidence for animals possessing their ancestors memories.

In addition you idea is wrong, we do remember ape like things. We are able to grip and hang from a very early age; we have instincts to use our hands to manipulate things; we have vocal and non vocal methods of communication much like other apes.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not aware of any evidence for animals possessing their ancestors memories.

There was that experiment where monkeys were hosed down for attempting to grasp a banana at the top of a ladder. One by one they replaced the monkeys with monkeys that knew nothing about the hosing - and eventually all of them avoided the banana, with no experience of being hosed down.

The point being, something should be reflected in our interpretation of our environment, even if it is not reflected in "fact".

In addition you idea is wrong, we do remember ape like things. We are able to grip and hang from a very early age; we have instincts to use our hands to manipulate things; we have vocal and non vocal methods of communication much like other apes.

You are pointing out similarities, but not nuance.

I am saying that the nuance to what we do (as humans) should reflect prior monkey influence.

 

[Shemjaza]

There was that experiment where monkeys were hosed down for attempting to grasp a banana at the top of a ladder. One by one they replaced the monkeys with monkeys that knew nothing about the hosing - and eventually all of them avoided the banana, with no experience of being hosed down.

The point being, something should be reflected in our interpretation of our environment, even if it is not reflected in "fact".

That's evidence for culture or communication not the transfer of memories to offspring.

You are pointing out similarities, but not nuance.

I am saying that the nuance to what we do (as humans) should reflect prior monkey influence.

That doesn't actually clarify anything. Can you explain what you mean by nuance in this context and how it is different to the actual evidence?

 

[Gottservant]

That's evidence for culture or communication not the transfer of memories to offspring.

The only thing that changes (in this example), is what the monkeys maintain - if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?

That doesn't actually clarify anything. Can you explain what you mean by nuance in this context and how it is different to the actual evidence?

Similarities occur because of similar selection pressures, nuance occurs when something is maintained and maintained in such a way that honors the source of the inspiration behind that nuance. Similarities "build up", nuances 'redefine'.

 

[Shemjaza]

The only thing that changes (in this example), if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?

You are mistaken about the differences and about evolution.

Your earlier was about expecting memories to carry on over hundreds of thousands of generations. Your only example supporting this was evidence of communication and culture over zero generations between living creatures existing in the same place and same situation, not separated by generations.

So what changes is:
The time frame, being less than the life span of a single creature, compared to much longer then the lifespan of the entire species.
The method of communication, being between a small group of individuals who can physically and vocally interact, rather than between distant descendants with no known method of transmitting data.

These demonstrate significant differences that demonstrates your example is not useful to demonstrate anything about your idea.


Your statement "if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?" does not make sense and does not in any reasonable way apply to evolution.

You don't clearly define what you think is being maintained and how that can be demonstrated.

And more significantly you imply that "something maintained" and evolution itself in some way might be able to evolve... this is wrong due to evolution being a process that happens to species over multiple generations.

People have attempted to explain this to you multiple times.

Similarities occur because of similar selection pressures, nuance occurs when something is maintained and maintained in such a way that honors the source of the inspiration behind that nuance. Similarities "build up", nuances 'redefine'.

That is very unclear, can you present specific examples?

 

[Gottservant]

You are mistaken about the differences and about evolution.

It would help if you didn't cut important information, out of what I said. If I hadn't checked the difference, you would have left me completely confused about what was said.

Your earlier was about expecting memories to carry on over hundreds of thousands of generations. Your only example supporting this was evidence of communication and culture over zero generations between living creatures existing in the same place and same situation, not separated by generations.

Surely latent potential is gauged by moments in context, not series of divergence.

So what changes is:
The time frame, [...]
The method of communication,
[...]

By implying the method is more important than the content, you remove what is evidently local, for the sake of that which is broad.

[...]
Your statement "if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?" does not make sense and does not in any reasonable way apply to evolution.

If Evolution is not 'maintained', how do you move from the context in which it is appropriate, to the one in which it is "relevant".

You don't clearly define what you think is being maintained and how that can be demonstrated.

And more significantly you imply that "something maintained" and evolution itself in some way might be able to evolve... this is wrong due to evolution being a process that happens to species over multiple generations.

People have attempted to explain this to you multiple times.

The problem you have is that you are made in the image of God, but you deny that image currency (you don't believe God exists, and you don't believe that God made you); then when you find you lack objectivity about a plethora of changes that are relevant to your species, you point to an image of your own making - but don't make clear how you arrive or depart from interpretation of that image.

I want to help you understand yourself, but you have to at least try to start with what you do know, not what you 'guess might happen'.

That is very unclear, can you present specific examples?

Similarities of a race, evidence shared instinct for observation; nuances of a race, evidence shared context for departure from common observation, in relation to that race.

One requires you to be true, the other requires you to be ready.

As I have said a couple of times now "the evolution of a specific survival, is different from the optimum survival for that evolution" - you are not addressing the whole of what is argued, needs to be begun.

Adam wasn't created without a way to pass on his genes, that didn't happen by accident.

I don't need to keep telling you how time began, when you have enough work cut out for you to live a whole and valued life, whatever God turns out to be, for you?

 

[Gottservant]

The point of this thread, is to determine whether being ready to evolve, has anything to do with how much you evolve when you do.

You can get to Heaven, and expect Evolution to be more and more complicated and be in Hell or you can get to Heaven, and expect Evolution to be simpler and simpler and be in Heaven forever?

I would say that is a choice worth taking seriously, wouldn't you?

Let me make it simple for you, I don't want Evolution to be more and more complicated - I want Evolution to be simpler and simpler.

If you can't think of a way to make Evolution simpler, you haven't been listening - not to that constant beating difference that having a heart of compassion for all species makes strong.

How dare you evolve with so great an image fixed upon you, that all you do is say "that's mine" and walk off, without so much as a word of praise for the one that created you.

I am no longer going to argue the point, I can see that it was never meant to be for this lifetime for someone to evolve beyond the humanity they have been given - no, from now on, I am going to expect compassion.

Give me a reason, one reason, why you have decided to show compassion, on the basis of Evolution - then we will talk about how we can be responsible to that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The point of this thread, is to determine whether being ready to evolve, has anything to do with how much you evolve when you do.

You can get to Heaven, and expect Evolution to be more and more complicated and be in Hell or you can get to Heaven, and expect Evolution to be simpler and simpler and be in Heaven forever?

I would say that is a choice worth taking seriously, wouldn't you?

You are told repeatedly that evolution is not something anyone has control over. A being cannot b ready to evolve no more than you can be ready to breath. They just happen.

Why do you keep thinking that evolution is a matter of choice?

 

[Shemjaza]

It would help if you didn't cut important information, out of what I said. If I hadn't checked the difference, you would have left me completely confused about what was said.

I posted the entire comment that i was replying to.

Surely latent potential is gauged by moments in context, not series of divergence.



By implying the method is more important than the content, you remove what is evidently local, for the sake of that which is broad.



If Evolution is not 'maintained', how do you move from the context in which it is appropriate, to the one in which it is "relevant".

That does not make sense and it does not have anything to do with how evolution is understood to operate.

The problem you have is that you are made in the image of God, but you deny that image currency (you don't believe God exists, and you don't believe that God made you); then when you find you lack objectivity about a plethora of changes that are relevant to your species, you point to an image of your own making - but don't make clear how you arrive or depart from interpretation of that image.

I want to help you understand yourself, but you have to at least try to start with what you do know, not what you 'guess might happen'.

Whether I believe in God or not is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Creation could be true, or it could be false. Evolution could be true or it could be false.

You don't need to believe in something to understand what it proposes.

It was objective physical evidence that led to the proposal of the theory of evolution and that's why some Christians, atheists and many other kinds of religious people accept it.

Can you describe what this plethora of changes are? Can you explain the objective method you are proposing to detect them?

Similarities of a race, evidence shared instinct for observation; nuances of a race, evidence shared context for departure from common observation, in relation to that race.

One requires you to be true, the other requires you to be ready.

As I have said a couple of times now "the evolution of a specific survival, is different from the optimum survival for that evolution" - you are not addressing the whole of what is argued, needs to be begun.

Adam wasn't created without a way to pass on his genes, that didn't happen by accident.

I don't need to keep telling you how time began, when you have enough work cut out for you to live a whole and valued life, whatever God turns out to be, for you?

That doesn't actually clarify any specifics.

And you link to one of your older threads is full of the mistakes where you depict evolution of a possession or a choice, which is simply wrong.

 

[Gottservant]

You are told repeatedly that evolution is not something anyone has control over. A being cannot b ready to evolve no more than you can be ready to breath. They just happen.

Why do you keep thinking that evolution is a matter of choice?

Jesus said "If you believe in Evolution, but don't see anything happening, give it a chance to grow fruit anyway, before you get rid of it"

 

[Gottservant]

I posted the entire comment that i was replying to.

For reference, this is what was said:

The only thing that changes (in this example), is what the monkeys maintain - if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?

And this is what was quoted

The only thing that changes (in this example),[?] if what the monkeys maintain does not evolve, then there is nothing for Evolution to evolve?

That does not make sense and it does not have anything to do with how evolution is understood to operate

You don't understand appropriacy, or you would have made it simpler for me to understand.

If you don't have a standard that you are aiming for, how do you say "You are wrong"?

Yet we know from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, that everything has a standard - and we ignore it to our peril: if I die evolved without faith in God, are you going to resurrect me?

Whether I believe in God or not is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

If there is a God, then there is a right and wrong way of interpreting "Evolution".

Creation could be true, or it could be false. Evolution could be true or it could be false.

And I repent, if I have done something for Evolution the wrong way (I do not need to wallow in guilt, about misinterpreting what Evolution meant). Just as you should repent, if you have done something for Creation the wrong way (and not be frustrated that you did not have perfect faith, from the outset).

You don't need to believe in something to understand what it proposes.

But you do need to believe in it, to know whether your will is in agreement with what it proposes your purpose should be.

I understand that this is a spiritual question, but if you don't address the spirit first, nothing you can do in your own strength, will profit you.

It was objective physical evidence that led to the proposal of the theory of evolution and that's why some Christians, atheists and many other kinds of religious people accept it.

And I extrapolated from the evidence that Evolution is something that species can do, without changing from one into the other - but no one is interested, in part I think, because they have failed to awake their spirit, to the struggle that their species is in. If you had diverse ways of attempting to adapt, you would have evidence that your Evolution was changing over time. But now you say "our Evolution stays the same, regardless of the work we undertake" therefore your work continues to be inappropriate.

Can you describe what this plethora of changes are? Can you explain the objective method you are proposing to detect them?

Monkeys climb trees and pick nits and fight over prowess of aggression, all things you can reason doing as a Man, in contexts where Man's knowledge has continued to grow.

Yet you say "no, if I built a house I would not put branches for swinging on, around it, because the time as monkey, that I posit was common to all of us, is now inappropriately out of context, for how I really really do, want to build a house". You can't understand how confusing that is?

It applies to all sorts of things, how we plan, socialise, build - the common thread between monkey survival and Man survival carries no tradition with it whatsoever. But independently there are traditions for both. That points to something else being behind the parallel the developments of both have evidenced.

That doesn't actually clarify any specifics.

And you link to one of your older threads is full of the mistakes where you depict evolution of a possession or a choice, which is simply wrong.

The point remains the same "the evolution of a specific survival, is different than the optimum for that survival"

You are trying to pull the wool over my eyes, that if I take the cake I get a candy bar for free too - regardless of the fact that I can't eat the cake.