Nude Evolution: the right progression of selection pressures, will evolve "Evolution"?

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Hi there,

So to contradict this thought experiment, you basically have to say "there is no selection pressure for selection pressure"? The thought experiment is basically simple: a sequence of selection pressures lead to Darwin discovering "Evolution" and the same concept could be used to lead "Evolution" to 'evolve'. It could happen slowly, I'm not suggesting magic: first there could be pressure to be understand, then pressure to be re-used, then pressure to be foretelling - such as then leads "Evolution" to take on a more refined, more effective meaning. I mean there is no rule for what is or is not "evolving", no sign that 'evolution' is "making progress", right?

I mean this is what I have been fighting all along, that you can't just take the high-ground in causation, deny all alternatives and still prove efficacious in measuring out meaning that strengthens Evolution's cause. At some point you will have to weigh what is for Evolution and what is not - a philosophical challenge, for which faith (already) has part of the answer! The whole time you argue "no, evolution does not work like that" you have to answer why it works at all, that's not constructive. I am not trying to stump you, but I have a vested interest in knowing whether there is compunction behind your belief or whether it is just fluff?

I mean realistically, they have tested this by doing telephone games, showing that people's message changes radically through transmission - Evolution is not impervious to this, heck even faith is vulnerable to this (but we have standards in place that make it very hard to reground what is believed without peer review). The whole question of whether something is going to be remembered, for example, in the faith is already answered by three truths: Jesus' words can't be forgotten, someone is coming from Heaven to remind us of them and if we don't (remember them) we will be gradually more and more punished. That should be a model for whatever we believe, not just culture, not just science.

What I am interested in, is if Evolution "evolves", how are you going to respond? What are you going to say matters, when more and more of what you believe is questioned? Do you see what I am getting at here, you are like a duck sitting in water, the more you say you can handle the storm, the less likely you will survive; saying "no, storms start out as little whirlwinds" is not going to help you, you need to move. Even in Evolutionary terms, there just has to be a way of tracking progress, how else will you know if you have started swearing by the colour of your hair - something (Jesus said) you cannot change. Basically all mutations can be sorted, this way: between those things that we can change and those that will change those coming after us. Do you see the point?

If you are serious about making "Evolution" a science in its own right, you have to address this? I haven't forgotten what I said about the faith: someone will remind us - even if that is all I remember, that is enough to justify "remembering"?

Maybe if you just ask yourself "am I committing mutation to something I can't change? Or something I would change, if I knew how?" Then maybe we can get the conversation beyond a die roll, to nowhere but Evolutionary Hell...
 

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Hi there,

So to contradict this thought experiment, you basically have to say "there is no selection pressure for selection pressure"? The thought experiment is basically simple: a sequence of selection pressures lead to Darwin discovering "Evolution" and the same concept could be used to lead "Evolution" to 'evolve'. It could happen slowly, I'm not suggesting magic: first there could be pressure to be understand, then pressure to be re-used, then pressure to be foretelling - such as then leads "Evolution" to take on a more refined, more effective meaning. I mean there is no rule for what is or is not "evolving", no sign that 'evolution' is "making progress", right?

I mean this is what I have been fighting all along, that you can't just take the high-ground in causation, deny all alternatives and still prove efficacious in measuring out meaning that strengthens Evolution's cause. At some point you will have to weigh what is for Evolution and what is not - a philosophical challenge, for which faith (already) has part of the answer! The whole time you argue "no, evolution does not work like that" you have to answer why it works at all, that's not constructive. I am not trying to stump you, but I have a vested interest in knowing whether there is compunction behind your belief or whether it is just fluff?

I mean realistically, they have tested this by doing telephone games, showing that people's message changes radically through transmission - Evolution is not impervious to this, heck even faith is vulnerable to this (but we have standards in place that make it very hard to reground what is believed without peer review). The whole question of whether something is going to be remembered, for example, in the faith is already answered by three truths: Jesus' words can't be forgotten, someone is coming from Heaven to remind us of them and if we don't (remember them) we will be gradually more and more punished. That should be a model for whatever we believe, not just culture, not just science.

What I am interested in, is if Evolution "evolves", how are you going to respond? What are you going to say matters, when more and more of what you believe is questioned? Do you see what I am getting at here, you are like a duck sitting in water, the more you say you can handle the storm, the less likely you will survive; saying "no, storms start out as little whirlwinds" is not going to help you, you need to move. Even in Evolutionary terms, there just has to be a way of tracking progress, how else will you know if you have started swearing by the colour of your hair - something (Jesus said) you cannot change. Basically all mutations can be sorted, this way: between those things that we can change and those that will change those coming after us. Do you see the point?

If you are serious about making "Evolution" a science in its own right, you have to address this? I haven't forgotten what I said about the faith: someone will remind us - even if that is all I remember, that is enough to justify "remembering"?

Maybe if you just ask yourself "am I committing mutation to something I can't change? Or something I would change, if I knew how?" Then maybe we can get the conversation beyond a die roll, to nowhere but Evolutionary Hell...
This does not make sense because you are misusing words with the wrong meanings.

Evolution is a process that applies to populations of living things.

It is not valid to try and apply that process to the idea od the process itself.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Gottservant, do you ever actually take in what anyone says to you about your takes on evolution or science... or anything? Or is it just in one ear and out the other?

All to quickly do you assume that if you don't understand it: no one does.

From time to time God sends people to me, that understand and rejoice that I make the sense that I do.

I am not saying I hope for people like you, to be people like them, just that as the Spirit urges so I speak.

If you were smart you would be trying to refine my urges?
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
PSA -- in another thread in another part of CF, Gottservant has self-identified as a diagnosed schizophrenic.

I have stopped trying to judge the meaning of my words - my schizophrenia ensures that I don't know how to (judge).

My whole problem with Evolution, is that Evolution proports to mean something for which no judgment can resolve.

You say "just acknowledge Evolution" when in fact I don't acknowledge the status of anything that needs to be judged all the time.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
This does not make sense because you are misusing words with the wrong meanings.

Evolution is a process that applies to populations of living things.

It is not valid to try and apply that process to the idea od the process itself.

Yet if someone plays the telephone game to exemplify "Evolution" that's good, that's science?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Yet if someone plays the telephone game to exemplify "Evolution" that's good, that's science?
It's not a telephone game, there's specific meanings in specific context.

The scientific theory of evolution has a specific meaning and when you change the meaning of words your entire discussion becomes irrelevant to the original point.

I appreciate that you have a lot of difficulty judging meanings... but you have to attempt to understand that if you change the context and definition of a word it can't be used to discuss the earlier definition.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,968
5,730
✟247,457.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If Evolution is a concept, what would you do to that concept, to make it make more sense?
Evolution is a scientific theory, and in its current form it makes a lot of sense. I couldn't alter it to make it better. I don't have the education or resources required to improve upon it.

I guess I could dumb it down so that other laymen like myself could get a more simplified and easier to grasp understanding. But there are probably already books that do that much better than I could.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gottservant
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
It's not a telephone game, there's specific meanings in specific context.

No, I mean I watched a show on cable television, that used the telephone game to demonstrate change over time - Evolution.

You're saying "no, they couldn't do that, that's impossible"?

If you truly understand something, there are a number of ways to interpret it, that's just fact?
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,968
5,730
✟247,457.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
My whole problem with Evolution, is that Evolution proports to mean something for which no judgment can resolve.
What do you mean by "judgement"?
What type of judgement are you wanting to make on the ToE?

Do you want to judge whether it is true or not?
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
What I don't get is that I even gave you examples of selection pressures that would be relevant:
Gottservant said:
first there could be pressure to be understood, then pressure to be re-used, then pressure to be foretelling

Are you saying the pressure to be understood, has no effect on Evolution? The pressure to be re-used? The pressure to be foretold?

Evolution will never be told in other languages? In other contexts? In other directions?

You can't strengthen instinct with Evolution? You can't attenuate strength with Evolution? You can't judge the nearness of the next Evolution?

You expect me to live in a box? With no windows? And no door?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,968
5,730
✟247,457.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, I mean I watched a show on cable television, that used the telephone game to demonstrate change over time - Evolution.
Here you are using the term "Evolution" in a very liberal way.

Words are often overloaded. This means that words can have multiple meanings which are different from each other and are used in different contexts.

Evolution in the terms of biology is very different from Evolution in terms of a message in the game of Chinese whispers, or Evolution in terms of the changing designs of cars or computers.

Evolution as a concept typically refers to change and improvement over a series of iterations.

Evolution in terms of biology refers to descent (giving one's own DNA to offspring which then share some of that DNA) as well as recognising that the descent can sometimes get mistakes in that DNA, and that sometimes those mistakes can prove beneficial for survivability and procreation and hence proliferate.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
What do you mean by "judgement"?
What type of judgement are you wanting to make on the ToE?

Do you want to judge whether it is true or not?

I do not want to know if it is true or not, primarily, but what judgment is next, in principle? Like I am actually excited that there may be a way to predict, as Darwin did, what will prove relevant to the progress of humility (with regard to changes over which we would otherwise have no power).

If you promise a kid candy forever, you may lure him away from his family; but if he grows up, he will come to know that you have robbed him.

You are promising endless change? But as soon as someone grows up and realizes you can't fulfil your promise, you say "he can't judge the difference, he's still a child!"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,968
5,730
✟247,457.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do not want to know if it is true or not, primarily, but what judgment is next, in principle?
I don't understand what you are looking for.
Evolution is a process of change. It isn't a method of attaining or verifying judgements.


You are promising endless change? But as soon as someone grows up and realizes you can't fulfil your promise, you say "he can't judge the difference, he's still a child!"
Who is promising endless change and in what context?
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
No, I mean I watched a show on cable television, that used the telephone game to demonstrate change over time - Evolution.

You're saying "no, they couldn't do that, that's impossible"?

If you truly understand something, there are a number of ways to interpret it, that's just fact?
That's a different example of how changes can build up over multiple steps, it is not a different interpretation of evolution.

I think you need to stop using "You're saying" when you think you have worked out what someone is saying, because you don't seem to ever get it right.

Different interpretations are different topics. If you want to discuss the theory of evolution, the only relevant interpretation is the scientific theory... if you bring up other interpretations that is simply a distraction to the topic.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
I don't understand what you are looking for.
Evolution is a process of change. It isn't a method of attaining or verifying judgements.

Yes it is! Darwin wrote about species interacting with other species in a symbiotic way, before he found evidence of it. If you don't think that was relevant to his theory, you are missing the point?
Who is promising endless change and in what context?
Evolutionists are saying "there is no more individual," they say "only Evolution"!
 
Upvote 0