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...
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...