Swapping out, that which does not match the "peak" - is more effective than Evolution

Which way would you rather perfect yourself?

  • Swapping out, things that are not perfect

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Becoming Familiar, with perfection that can be hunted

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Learning instinctively, what examples of perfection respond to

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Challenging rights, to be called closer and closer to perfection

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Firey defence, of things that are perfect briefly

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Magnetically charming, mates that want more perfection not less

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

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 I want to introduce a very simple concept: swapping out. Swapping out, is the idea that a single member of a species can develop an affinity, with exemplars in the species, such that when a child is born to it, that child will have some of the strengths of those exemplars. This can happen within one generation - as when the parents say "the baby has your eyes" - or it can happen over many generations - as with two white people having a black baby, because there was a black man in the lineage. The point is: strengths gained by the population as a whole, become strengths of the individual.

The mechanism is very simple: the more an affinity exists between a parent of the species, and another member of that species - as when males fight during mating season - the more that parent will encourage seed it possesses, to follow the model of that other member of the species. This can happen over many occasions and gradually means that the total strength demonstrable by the parent's seed, is equivalent to the larger portion of the species as a whole. It is an aggrandising of the peak demonstrable, by any member of that species, in the order in which its adaptations are swapped out.

The more swapped out, a species becomes, the more likely that the Evolution conceived will be a copy of the best possible for that species - the peak. This means that not only is the child stronger, both it and its parents are more familiar to each other - including their instinct. In short, familiar Evolution ensures that survival will be more likely. Not only that, but familiar Evolution that is "swapped out", has greater survival to fall back on - when taking chances with the hunt, becomes more strenuously denied. The concept of play, in this context, is what cements the connection between "swapping out" and "familiar Evolution" - but the point is that they are more successful, the longer they are allowed to play out (not fight or flight at all).

I wonder if you are able to grasp this: that a prey species is able to perfect what it passes on and a predator species is able become familiar with the hunt, through play? That there is a raw instinct, that is able to navigate mating with precisely these goals in mind?
 

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
65
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Hi there,

So I want to introduce a very simple concept: swapping out. Swapping out, is the idea that a single member of a species can develop an affinity, with exemplars in the species, such that when a child is born to it, that child will have some of the strengths of those exemplars. This can happen within one generation - as when the parents say "the baby has your eyes" - or it can happen over many generations - as with two white people having a black baby, because there was a black man in the lineage. The point is: strengths gained by the population as a whole, become strengths of the individual.

The mechanism is very simple: the more an affinity exists between a parent of the species, and another member of that species - as when males fight during mating season - the more that parent will encourage seed it possesses, to follow the model of that other member of the species. This can happen over many occasions and gradually means that the total strength demonstrable by the parent's seed, is equivalent to the larger portion of the species as a whole. It is an aggrandising of the peak demonstrable, by any member of that species, in the order in which its adaptations are swapped out.

The more swapped out, a species becomes, the more likely that the Evolution conceived will be a copy of the best possible for that species - the peak. This means that not only is the child stronger, both it and its parents are more familiar to each other - including their instinct. In short, familiar Evolution ensures that survival will be more likely. Not only that, but familiar Evolution that is "swapped out", has greater survival to fall back on - when taking chances with the hunt, becomes more strenuously denied. The concept of play, in this context, is what cements the connection between "swapping out" and "familiar Evolution" - but the point is that they are more successful, the longer they are allowed to play out (not fight or flight at all).

I wonder if you are able to grasp this: that a prey species is able to perfect what it passes on and a predator species is able become familiar with the hunt, through play? That there is a raw instinct, that is able to navigate mating with precisely these goals in mind?
Well you are getting closer to evolution. What you are describing seems at least recognizable as what is known as Lamarckism. A theory that preceded Darwin's theory. Unfortunately for you, it was abandoned due to lack of evidence, though I suppose you could look for some again.

Again, if you wish to discuss evolution, please look it up and spend some time reading.
 
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
The idea that contemplation can't happen without research, is counter-constructive.

I am not suggesting that the passing on of genes is once off, but progressive.

Evolution used as an argument to defy the peak of a given species, fails this test - the Evolution of a species without a peak, is inferior, for reasons defined here.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi there,

So I want to introduce a very simple concept: swapping out. Swapping out, is the idea that a single member of a species can develop an affinity, with exemplars in the species, such that when a child is born to it, that child will have some of the strengths of those exemplars. This can happen within one generation - as when the parents say "the baby has your eyes" - or it can happen over many generations - as with two white people having a black baby, because there was a black man in the lineage. The point is: strengths gained by the population as a whole, become strengths of the individual.

The mechanism is very simple: the more an affinity exists between a parent of the species, and another member of that species - as when males fight during mating season - the more that parent will encourage seed it possesses, to follow the model of that other member of the species. This can happen over many occasions and gradually means that the total strength demonstrable by the parent's seed, is equivalent to the larger portion of the species as a whole. It is an aggrandising of the peak demonstrable, by any member of that species, in the order in which its adaptations are swapped out.

The more swapped out, a species becomes, the more likely that the Evolution conceived will be a copy of the best possible for that species - the peak. This means that not only is the child stronger, both it and its parents are more familiar to each other - including their instinct. In short, familiar Evolution ensures that survival will be more likely. Not only that, but familiar Evolution that is "swapped out", has greater survival to fall back on - when taking chances with the hunt, becomes more strenuously denied. The concept of play, in this context, is what cements the connection between "swapping out" and "familiar Evolution" - but the point is that they are more successful, the longer they are allowed to play out (not fight or flight at all).

I wonder if you are able to grasp this: that a prey species is able to perfect what it passes on and a predator species is able become familiar with the hunt, through play? That there is a raw instinct, that is able to navigate mating with precisely these goals in mind?

'raw instinct' raises a good point, we are all familiar with examples of simple hypothetical morphology - e.g. Giraffes developing gradually longer necks thorough random variation and natural selection- fossil evidence aside, the theory at least is extremely easy to grasp.

But what random mutation accidentally lends an individual superior mental instincts? e.g.an innate fear of specific animals? innate human capacity to learn code conventions in language? At the very least this is a little less intuitive than simple morphological size/length/color control gene examples.

Some scientists are raising the possibility of 'Lamarckism' once more- where environmental/epigenetic driven expressions of genes might be inherited. Some experiments claim to show mice inheriting learned responses to otherwise arbitrary stimuli. That might help fill in some of the lacking 'generative powers' of random mutation, but still runs into some of the same macroevolutionary barriers.
 
Last edited:
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
'raw instinct' raises a good point, we are all familiar with examples of simple hypothetical morphology - e.g. Giraffes developing gradually longer necks thorough random variation and natural selection- fossil evidence aside, the theory at least is extremely easy to grasp.

But what random mutation accidentally lends an individual superior mental instincts? e.g.an innate fear of specific animals? innate human capacity to learn code conventions in language? At the very least this is a little less intuitive than simple morphological size/length/color control gene examples.

Some scientists are raising the possibility of 'Lamarckism' once more- where environmental/epigenetic driven expressions of genes might be inherited. Some experiments claim to show mice inheriting learned responses to otherwise arbitrary stimuli. That might help fill in some of the lacking 'generative powers' of random mutation, but still runs into some of the same macroevolutionary barriers.

What's the evidence for the lacking 'generative powers' of random mutation?

What are the macroevolutionary barriers? (Specifically).
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What's the evidence for the lacking 'generative powers' of random mutation?

What are the macroevolutionary barriers? (Specifically).

Prove the negative?
The question is rather; what evidence supports the assertion?:

That random corruption of genetic information is capable of accounting for all the Phenotypic novelty of the Cambrian explosion or even the mammalian radiation 66 million years ago?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..
 
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
Prove the negative?
The question is rather; what evidence supports the assertion?:

Mutation causes variation, that's trivially true, so I don't see any "lack". I assumed you had some evidence to indicate it.

That random corruption of genetic information is capable of accounting for all the Phenotypic novelty of the Cambrian explosion or even the mammalian radiation 66 million years ago?

I've never seen genetic information both defined in any kind of objective measurable way and not easily accounted for by mutation and selection.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..
Sure, so we have the pattern of branching hierarchies of relatedness demonstrated in genetic code and in fossil evidence.
 
Upvote 0