Hi there,
So the assumption is typically that "anything better than mutation, is worth preserving", but I have not yet seen the evidence that preservation has natural causes (something demanded by "science", no?). Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that "preservation" has a particular function at all. I want to keep the momentum going, I guess I just want to be steered in the direction of lasting or propitious preservation. You will be tempted to give me a reply that defends the impasse that Evolution does not need to be questioned to be "Evolution", but I urge you not to give me something that I cannot a part of which give to someone who truly needs it (someone who comes at night saying "my friend has come a long way to visit me, and I have nothing to give him - please give me something?").
There is more and less effective "preservation", so there is no need to tell me "the state of a particular preservation, is irrelevant to the preservation of the species" - I am not arguing from a position of blinder than normal perception. Rather, I am arguing that a better preserved species is able to survival more easily, than one that simply survives. This extends to communicating preservation, warning when preservation is vulnerable and predicting where preservation will be strongest - not a needless collection of advantages! The simpler you can make your answer, the better, too - so I hope you won't mind if I don't pull out all the stops to understand, that which you should really understand yourself!
The fact is that preservation handled correctly, will advance the species and the species being advanced will die less. This is the hand of something, upon the species of the Earth - that their development not come at the expense of the partially preserved, but not sufficiently. There needs to be an explanation of why "preservation" would "evolve". The more laterally that species develop the capacity to determine and direct their preservation, the broader the scope of their preservation would be. Thus there are principled interpretations of "evolutionary preservation" that have more say on the survival of a species than less - this ought to be noted and noted well.
What it does not demonstrate, is that in the absence of something that governs preservation in its own right, preservation simply happens by chance - because mutations slow the development of control (control which should in principle be greater if there is "preservation"). The preservation of something associated with mutation, has to be distinct from the mutation by which you get survival - or survival is simply death (the undifferentiated attempt at "evolution" that is not retained in a functional way). The colloquialism that mutation becoming its own adaptation is reason enough, does not hold over time, but purely in the moment. This is a pollution of the adaptations that are possible, in attempt to peddle a particular mutation, whose worth is undemonstrated.
I put it to you that this is as simply as introducing the concept of "preservation" in the same way "mutation" was, until it is clear that the difference between "Evolution" - that has particular preservations - is more advantageous, than mutations that are completely at random. Like the Monty Hall problem: once you know mutation does not work behind door A, you are better off to go with B or C, for which survival is more likely preserved. I am not attempting to say "Door A can't be chosen" by mutation, just that the more that is revealed, the more consistently probability plays a part in what is considered "Evolved". In time, choosing may become a reflex - at which point we are not looking at chance, but design.
Maybe this is above you; you were preserving your concept of "Evolution" just fine, without having to theorize "preservation" on its own - if that's you, I am sorry, maybe you will keep winning the mutational lottery and I will look stupid for trying to suggested that effort be added: but I want to stress, that you are not demonstrating that luck in an "Evolutionary" way, you are simply guessing. You could be more direct and contradict "mutation and preservation" together, but again: that would not be Evolution.
So the assumption is typically that "anything better than mutation, is worth preserving", but I have not yet seen the evidence that preservation has natural causes (something demanded by "science", no?). Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that "preservation" has a particular function at all. I want to keep the momentum going, I guess I just want to be steered in the direction of lasting or propitious preservation. You will be tempted to give me a reply that defends the impasse that Evolution does not need to be questioned to be "Evolution", but I urge you not to give me something that I cannot a part of which give to someone who truly needs it (someone who comes at night saying "my friend has come a long way to visit me, and I have nothing to give him - please give me something?").
There is more and less effective "preservation", so there is no need to tell me "the state of a particular preservation, is irrelevant to the preservation of the species" - I am not arguing from a position of blinder than normal perception. Rather, I am arguing that a better preserved species is able to survival more easily, than one that simply survives. This extends to communicating preservation, warning when preservation is vulnerable and predicting where preservation will be strongest - not a needless collection of advantages! The simpler you can make your answer, the better, too - so I hope you won't mind if I don't pull out all the stops to understand, that which you should really understand yourself!
The fact is that preservation handled correctly, will advance the species and the species being advanced will die less. This is the hand of something, upon the species of the Earth - that their development not come at the expense of the partially preserved, but not sufficiently. There needs to be an explanation of why "preservation" would "evolve". The more laterally that species develop the capacity to determine and direct their preservation, the broader the scope of their preservation would be. Thus there are principled interpretations of "evolutionary preservation" that have more say on the survival of a species than less - this ought to be noted and noted well.
What it does not demonstrate, is that in the absence of something that governs preservation in its own right, preservation simply happens by chance - because mutations slow the development of control (control which should in principle be greater if there is "preservation"). The preservation of something associated with mutation, has to be distinct from the mutation by which you get survival - or survival is simply death (the undifferentiated attempt at "evolution" that is not retained in a functional way). The colloquialism that mutation becoming its own adaptation is reason enough, does not hold over time, but purely in the moment. This is a pollution of the adaptations that are possible, in attempt to peddle a particular mutation, whose worth is undemonstrated.
I put it to you that this is as simply as introducing the concept of "preservation" in the same way "mutation" was, until it is clear that the difference between "Evolution" - that has particular preservations - is more advantageous, than mutations that are completely at random. Like the Monty Hall problem: once you know mutation does not work behind door A, you are better off to go with B or C, for which survival is more likely preserved. I am not attempting to say "Door A can't be chosen" by mutation, just that the more that is revealed, the more consistently probability plays a part in what is considered "Evolved". In time, choosing may become a reflex - at which point we are not looking at chance, but design.
Maybe this is above you; you were preserving your concept of "Evolution" just fine, without having to theorize "preservation" on its own - if that's you, I am sorry, maybe you will keep winning the mutational lottery and I will look stupid for trying to suggested that effort be added: but I want to stress, that you are not demonstrating that luck in an "Evolutionary" way, you are simply guessing. You could be more direct and contradict "mutation and preservation" together, but again: that would not be Evolution.
