Hi there,
So I am trying to work out, what the mechanism behind "Evolution" is and from what I am told, what you were to begin with, makes a difference, that is, the succession of development from one creature to the next "culminates" in something. Following this logic, the more steps that you take and the more challenging they are (each step), the greater the final Evolution. So if I am first a fish, then a giraffe, then an elephant, I will be a much greater "Elephant" for the sake of having been a giraffe, after having been a fish... and not just a fish, then Elephant? That makes sense, right? The more steps in between, the more refined the overall result?
I am just sort of curious, why it would matter so much? Like why would you want to be a better Elephant? Because you beat Elephants, that aren't from giraffes? Does that even make sense? It's not possible to be an Elephant and humble, that it wasn't a transition from a giraffe, that made you what you were? And still be effective as an Elephant? The whole point is that there are certain pressures at play, and coping with those pressures hinges on their meaning remain relatively constant, why you become more effective at escaping them, in that constancy - isn't it? Or are we supposed to experiment with the human genome, go back to "ape" and start again, comparing results with other divergences besides the ape to human connection - ape to giraffe to human, ape to hippopotamus to human? It's all a crap shoot, right? Once we get that right, then human to the next phase will be so much easier - is that your logic?
I am not trying to rubbish all of the theory, yes, there will be improvements in predators from generation to generation, which in turn affect what survive among peaceful species and indeed peaceful species may even be wiped out, but we are supposing that selection pressures are the be all and end all of what adapts and what does not, aren't we? I mean if there is another alternative pressure to being human - ape to giraffe to human - why is it necessary to be something else, to learn an equal lesson? Isn't it enough to imagine having been a giraffe and learn from that? Wouldn't that be greater, to imagine it? I am using my imagination now, to see what I can learn from "Evolution" about the necessity of adapting in certain ways, to save the species - anticipating its antecedent selection pressures, before it becomes a choice of being and nothing: the most unfair expectation of any species, that it give up what it is that makes it who it was, when their imagination was so much greater?
I guess to summarize, I really just want that point: if it doesn't matter to you how many steps it took to get you where you are, why aren't you at all interested in other steps you could take before now? Is "ape to elephant to human" really that much a different leap from 'ape to human'? There is a boundary that is being checked, here, right? And you say if the selection pressure was right, "so what?" But who is that that is saying "so what?" someone who has evolved that way, or someone that will, given the chance? I mean it is a serious question to ask, right?
I'm just saying, we want "Evolution" to be as free as possible, maybe we need to start with how we interpret what we've got already - even without the monkey?
So I am trying to work out, what the mechanism behind "Evolution" is and from what I am told, what you were to begin with, makes a difference, that is, the succession of development from one creature to the next "culminates" in something. Following this logic, the more steps that you take and the more challenging they are (each step), the greater the final Evolution. So if I am first a fish, then a giraffe, then an elephant, I will be a much greater "Elephant" for the sake of having been a giraffe, after having been a fish... and not just a fish, then Elephant? That makes sense, right? The more steps in between, the more refined the overall result?
I am just sort of curious, why it would matter so much? Like why would you want to be a better Elephant? Because you beat Elephants, that aren't from giraffes? Does that even make sense? It's not possible to be an Elephant and humble, that it wasn't a transition from a giraffe, that made you what you were? And still be effective as an Elephant? The whole point is that there are certain pressures at play, and coping with those pressures hinges on their meaning remain relatively constant, why you become more effective at escaping them, in that constancy - isn't it? Or are we supposed to experiment with the human genome, go back to "ape" and start again, comparing results with other divergences besides the ape to human connection - ape to giraffe to human, ape to hippopotamus to human? It's all a crap shoot, right? Once we get that right, then human to the next phase will be so much easier - is that your logic?
I am not trying to rubbish all of the theory, yes, there will be improvements in predators from generation to generation, which in turn affect what survive among peaceful species and indeed peaceful species may even be wiped out, but we are supposing that selection pressures are the be all and end all of what adapts and what does not, aren't we? I mean if there is another alternative pressure to being human - ape to giraffe to human - why is it necessary to be something else, to learn an equal lesson? Isn't it enough to imagine having been a giraffe and learn from that? Wouldn't that be greater, to imagine it? I am using my imagination now, to see what I can learn from "Evolution" about the necessity of adapting in certain ways, to save the species - anticipating its antecedent selection pressures, before it becomes a choice of being and nothing: the most unfair expectation of any species, that it give up what it is that makes it who it was, when their imagination was so much greater?
I guess to summarize, I really just want that point: if it doesn't matter to you how many steps it took to get you where you are, why aren't you at all interested in other steps you could take before now? Is "ape to elephant to human" really that much a different leap from 'ape to human'? There is a boundary that is being checked, here, right? And you say if the selection pressure was right, "so what?" But who is that that is saying "so what?" someone who has evolved that way, or someone that will, given the chance? I mean it is a serious question to ask, right?
I'm just saying, we want "Evolution" to be as free as possible, maybe we need to start with how we interpret what we've got already - even without the monkey?
