There is a difference between "evolving" and preferencing, that I think is being confused

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I have basically nutted out that Evolution works by staging equilibrium between pre and post designed developments (materially, as in the material of the designed creature: pre-design the equilibrium is physical, post-design the difference is spiritual, in principle). From there it has become evident to me that thinking of evolution as "inter-specieal" turns evolution on its head, in ways that don't help the creature attempting to evolve: at the time that a creature should be creating alliances with other species, it is instead in limbo about where it stands as a member of a species in its own right (the cat is not the cat it could be, as long as it is stuck thinking it owes preferences to the dog and not the mouse).

This is the confusion, as designed a creature is able to establish preferences for some creatures and not others, this in turn creates a stronger or weaker interpretation of the creature it has become (the cat that has a strong preference for the mouse, and can act on it much more readily, if not for vexation concerning dogs - if a cat is told "owe what you are to a dog", the cat will be oppressed into running with horses (which it cant do), or cow towing to sheep (which it would not if it were a dog)).

The trouble is that when it comes to humans, we are told "your preferences should reflect that of an ape, not a dolphin" - this, aside from being disingenuous to the notion that we are freely created what we are before God, creates the impression that we are in subservience to something that should be a free choice and more than that... an expressive choice. Evolution is not an expressive choice, it is a repressive indictment. If you had survival instinct that was expressive, that same instinct would be that much the greater for that expressiveness.

 

[Gottservant]

I think what I mean is that if I am going to preference an ape over an actual ancestor, I want the trail of connections between the ape and me to be as creatively demanding as possible.

Not "ape - man" but "ape - cat- dog - horse- dolphin - man" or even "ape- mouse - ape - dolphin - dolphin - snake - man"

then at least you are saying there is something predictably great about switching out an ancestor for an animal (in the same way that numerous ways of relating to an ancestor would have been advantageous, if you had not begun to lie to yourself)

 

[Gottservant]

what is any "cause" that is for one creature a "difference" but at the same time for another creature "a different difference altogether"? how do you make a cause to live, different for every different creature's creature?

 

[The Barbarian]

Hi there,

So I have basically nutted out that Evolution works by staging equilibrium between pre and post designed developments (materially, as in the material of the designed creature: pre-design the equilibrium is physical, post-design the difference is spiritual, in principle). From there it has become evident to me that thinking of evolution as "inter-specieal" turns evolution on its head, in ways that don't help the creature attempting to evolve: at the time that a creature should be creating alliances with other species, it is instead in limbo about where it stands as a member of a species in its own right (the cat is not the cat it could be, as long as it is stuck thinking it owes preferences to the dog and not the mouse).

You're not making any sense here. Slow down, and try to explain it. Use evidence to support your belief.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Hi there,

So I have basically nutted out that Evolution works by staging equilibrium between pre and post designed developments (materially, as in the material of the designed creature: pre-design the equilibrium is physical, post-design the difference is spiritual, in principle). From there it has become evident to me that thinking of evolution as "inter-specieal" turns evolution on its head, in ways that don't help the creature attempting to evolve: at the time that a creature should be creating alliances with other species, it is instead in limbo about where it stands as a member of a species in its own right (the cat is not the cat it could be, as long as it is stuck thinking it owes preferences to the dog and not the mouse).

This is the confusion, as designed a creature is able to establish preferences for some creatures and not others, this in turn creates a stronger or weaker interpretation of the creature it has become (the cat that has a strong preference for the mouse, and can act on it much more readily, if not for vexation concerning dogs - if a cat is told "owe what you are to a dog", the cat will be oppressed into running with horses (which it cant do), or cow towing to sheep (which it would not if it were a dog)).

The trouble is that when it comes to humans, we are told "your preferences should reflect that of an ape, not a dolphin" - this, aside from being disingenuous to the notion that we are freely created what we are before God, creates the impression that we are in subservience to something that should be a free choice and more than that... an expressive choice. Evolution is not an expressive choice, it is a repressive indictment. If you had survival instinct that was expressive, that same instinct would be that much the greater for that expressiveness.

Is this some sort of riddle?

 

[The Barbarian]

I think what I mean is that if I am going to preference an ape over an actual ancestor, I want the trail of connections between the ape and me to be as creatively demanding as possible.

Not "ape - man" but "ape - cat- dog - horse- dolphin - man" or even "ape- mouse - ape - dolphin - dolphin - snake - man"

God is not obligated to meet our expectations. One of the things we've discovered is that evolutionary processes are remarkably efficient at solving complex problems. Engineers have started to use random change and natural selection to optimize devices that cannot easily be designed.

 

[Gottservant]

God is not obligated to meet our expectations. One of the things we've discovered is that evolutionary processes are remarkably efficient at solving complex problems. Engineers have started to use random change and natural selection to optimize devices that cannot easily be designed.

Yes, but what if I say "computers don't evolve, only networks of computers do"?

Do you realize now, that you are not yet being as constructive as you could be - specifically when you say "individuals don't evolve, only species do"??

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Yes, but what if I say "computers don't evolve, only networks of computers do"?

Do you realize now, that you are not yet being as constructive as you could be - specifically when you say "individuals don't evolve, only species do"??

If computers don't evolve, why did we move to Linux from Microsoft Windows?

And if you try to say this was all an intelligent design conspiracy theory, please remember that it was Bill Gates behind the whole Microsoft fiasco we call Windows.

 

[Gottservant]

If computers don't evolve, why did we move to Linux from Microsoft Windows?

And if you try to say this was all an intelligent design conspiracy theory, please remember that it was Bill Gates behind the whole Microsoft fiasco we call Windows.

You concede the point?

You would like to say "Bill Gates' don't evolve, interchangeable operating systems do"??

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, but what if I say "computers don't evolve, only networks of computers do"?

That would be fairly accurate for most computers. But it is possible for some individual computers to evolve. They don't work like living things, which are stuck with their basic genome.
http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73

Do you realize now, that you are not yet being as constructive as you could be - specifically when you say "individuals don't evolve, only species do"??

The truth is often inconvenient, but it does have the virtue of being true. Sorry.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

You concede the point?

You would like to say "Bill Gates' don't evolve, interchangeable operating systems do"??

If you knew about Bill Gates and Microsoft, you would understand that he really did home computing irreparable damage, much like evolutionism has done to science.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you knew about Bill Gates and Microsoft, you would understand that he really did home computing irreparable damage,

Which is like saying that Henry Ford did personal automobiles irreparable damage. You see, capitalism has a way to deal with stuff like that.

much like evolutionism has done to science.

"Evolutionism" is a weird misunderstanding of evolution. It's promoted almost exclusively by creationists who are either unable, to understand the real thing, or are desperately trying to stop other from understanding it.

 

[Gottservant]

The thing is you are saying "Bill Gates doesn't evolve, neither does Steve Jobs, so what?"

..when in fact the operating systems they evolved where not coequal no matter how interchangeable they became.

The point being Microsoft would readily hire someone like Steve Jobs, if he came back from the dead and the evolution of their respective operating systems would change as a result.

So you are robbing Paul twice to pay Peter once.

 

[The Barbarian]

If computers don't evolve, why did we move to Linux from Microsoft Windows?

Mostly, we moved from CP/M to Windows. In the 80s, DOS replaced CP/M. I was doing workflow with CP/M dBase on a Xerox 820 (with dual 8" floppies with 1 megabyte each)

When DOS came in, I told my boss that I was an ergonomist, not a programmer, and I suggested he get someone in IT to do it for us.