"In His Name, the Gentiles will trust" - what will "Evolutionist Gentiles" trust in Him?

[Gottservant]

Organisms tend to stay where they are adapted. But that means they don't evolve much. A well-fitted population, in a relatively constant environment will be prevented from evolving much, by natural selection. It's why most of the time, we see stasis in populations, and a lot of evolution, only if something major changes.

I am suggesting that a degree of agency, can change that.

Bad assumption, incorrect conclusion.

It's straight maths.

Or are you saying you can adapt to the point, where you know the outcome of every possible probability?

 

[Gottservant]

A population with mostly complete agency, is not limited by rule.

 

[The Barbarian]

Organisms tend to stay where they are adapted. But that means they don't evolve much. A well-fitted population, in a relatively constant environment will be prevented from evolving much, by natural selection. It's why most of the time, we see stasis in populations, and a lot of evolution, only if something major changes.

I am suggesting that a degree of agency, can change that.

There are four agencies of evolutionary change. Do you know what they are?

It's straight maths.

Show us that. You can use a simple example if you want. Hint: Hardy/Weinberg.

Or are you saying you can adapt to the point, where you know the outcome of every possible probability?

Where did you get that idea? Sometimes you seem to be arguing with yourself. But do show us those maths.

 

[Gottservant]

Look, it just amounts to whether you say "the evolutionary niche is half full" or "half empty".

The maths I told you is just what applied to the Monty Hall problem.

If you can show me a completely rule bound existence, is somehow "enough", I will show you a world of adaptations whose only commonality is God.

 

[Gottservant]

God is never going to ask anyone, to go back to a point: when they weren't themselves?

He might ask you to go back to a point, where you appreciated people differently?

Is either of these "Evolution"? Only if you make something of it?

 

[Gottservant]

Actually, what do Evolutionists say to the line: "You never swim in the same river, twice"?

If you mutate, then you do?

Or if someone forces you to, you do?

 

[Gottservant]

I think I have hit upon, where the debate breaks down (from tit for tat theory, to a specific truth).

Our parents typecast our design, as a survival strategy.

In other words, not even once, from the beginning, is it "up to us" to define what design we are - the choice has already been made.

The problem to date, has been that this has been viewed as a 'personal' failing on the part of design, to be as evolved as possible: when in reality, changing between forms, is less adaptive.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, all that talk about "maths" was just bravado. We got it.

 

[Gottservant]

I worked out what it is in principle, that will draw Evolutionists: more of the same!

"Negative Evolution" is how its been labelled, and basically it just means you sometimes survive better, if you eliminate adaptations that have little purpose.

For some reason, they are finding it hard to get their head around (Physical & Life Sciences forum), but they will readily accept the "positive" version, as if its law!

I don't actually have to change my stance, at this point: I'm just waiting to see how the existence of a negative plays out!

 

[The Barbarian]

"Negative Evolution" is how its been labelled, and basically it just means you sometimes survive better, if you eliminate adaptations that have little purpose.

No,that's not what it's called. It's just evolution.

Have you found your "maths", yet?

 

[Gottservant]

No,that's not what it's called. It's just evolution.

Have you found your "maths", yet?

No, you can't do that: Darwin discovered '"positive Evolution", and it was called "Evolution"; someone else discovers "negative Evolution" and you refuse to identify it!

As for maths, all I was saying was "if you are in an Evolutionary niche, and someone shows you the adaptation is not behind door number one: it makes sense to change your gamble, with the new information" - that's mathematics! The idea that you have "mutated", does not wash.

 

[Brightmoon]

No, that’s simply wrong and I can show you an example from our own lineage. Our jaw muscles are smaller and weaker than the other apes . It’s due to a genetic change. Our smaller jaw attach at the side of the skull. The other ape have jaw muscles that attach at the top . Gorilla jaws are so strong that they have a ridge of bone there to hold the muscles ( saggital crest ) . Because we don’t have thick bone with muscles holding our skull our brain was free to expand

 

[The Barbarian]

No, you can't do that: Darwin discovered '"positive Evolution", and it was called "Evolution";

No that's wrong. Darwin just said "descent with modification." Today, it's just "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Nothing about positive or negative. That's a creationist superstition,

As for maths, all I was saying was "if you are in an Evolutionary niche, and someone shows you the adaptation is not behind door number one: it makes sense to change your gamble, with the new information" - that's mathematics!

Show us your maths, then. You just made it up because you thought it sounded sciencey, didn't you? There really is no math in your argument is there?

The idea that you have "mutated", does not wash.

Mutation is a directly observed phenomenon. No point in denying the fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

I thing G.S. is confusing favorable and unfavorable mutations. The elimination of unfavorable mutations from a population is evolution. So is the increase in favorable mutations. Both are a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, which is what "evolution" is.

But you have to remember that "favorable" and "unfavorable" only apply in context of the environment. In some environments, an "unfavorable" mutation might actually be favorable. Or a "favorable"mutation might actually be unfavorable. Would you like some examples?

 

[The Barbarian]

No, that’s simply wrong and I can show you an example from our own lineage. Our jaw muscles are smaller and weaker than the other apes . It’s due to a genetic change. Our smaller jaw attach at the side of the skull. The other ape have jaw muscles that attach at the top . Gorilla jaws are so strong that they have a ridge of bone there to hold the muscles ( saggital crest ) . Because we don’t have thick bone with muscles holding our skull our brain was free to expand

I've seen this before, and it makes some sense. I had always thought the fetalization of humans (we retain juvenile ape characteristics, like a relatively large cranium and small face) was the reason for our larger brains.

Do you know of any data, other than common sense, that indicates weaker temporal muscles allowed more cranial growth?

 

[Brightmoon]

 

[Brightmoon]

You can see that thick ridge of bone that a gorilla jaw muscles attach to . That would prevent the skull from enlarging

 

[Brightmoon]

Here’s an adult female chimp and a fetal chimp skull . Humans have retained the juvenile characteristics of the face

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks that's pretty exciting. I'd like to read it. Could you give us the link?

 

[Brightmoon]

You know me and my wonky phone . That’s a photo but I did google “room for thought” gene , with the quotes