What fulfils the function of "preservation" - within Evolutionary theory?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes but why are they passed down? You act like the offspring know the mutation is for them - that they can preserve it without help?

If you are going to remember something, you need to be taught techniques that help you remember (like the Palace Technique).

I'm not saying the theory of Evolution is "wrong", if it doesn't have a way of preserving what is important - just that a way of preserving should be important.

I've already explained the how and the why to you. If you don't want to understand, that's not on me, that's on you.
You've already been told that evolution is not a conscious act, it is simply a biological reaction of genetics to a change in the environment. The fact that you cannot, or refuse to, understand this simple fact is just getting beyond ludicrous now.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes but you are saying "selection preserves mutation" by chance,

Selection is not chance.

Advantageous mutations are preserved by selection.

Chance might be present, but the selection shifts the odds.

that something mates with another member of the species at random, while preserving anything that leads to its adaptations.

It's not random. By definition advantageous mutations increase the odds of successfully reproducing.

Adaptions are caused by mutations.

How does an organism identify a connection between mutation and adaptation, but not a connection between an adaptation and a mutation?

An organism doesn't need to identify a connection between mutation and adaptation, because no identification or conscious awareness are necessary.

The connection is directly causal.

What mutation does selection preserve - something equally at random? How do you know?

The mutations that create advantages are selected. That's how evolution works.

You are aware that a child in the womb starts from scratch, by faith in its parents, that its innocence will not be presumed upon? If you knew what you were preserving, in terms of Evolution, your innocence would be defensible - as it stands you think Evolution is a package deal, with everything necessary built in, not wrong, but not constructive and being against constructive "sin" (sin, that must be corrected).

Sin and evolution are not relevant to each other.

Sin is related to choice, morality and spirituality.
Evolution is related to physical biological mechanisms on a population scale over generations.

These two things are not the same in any way.

 

[Gottservant]

[...]
Chance might be present, but the selection shifts the odds.
[...]

Thankyou. You have said it. Your "god" is shift in the odds. That's not wrong if you worship the god of odds, when you get a shift you were waiting for.

An organism doesn't need to identify a connection between mutation and adaptation, because no identification or conscious awareness are necessary.

The connection is directly causal.

Yes but which connection? Even if you define gravity, you need to define whether you mean at the interstellar level, the material level or the subatomic level.

The mutations that create advantages are selected. That's how evolution works.

But it can't "work" unless this is preserved in a predictable way. P-r-e-s-e-r-v-e-d.

Sin and evolution are not relevant to each other.

Sin is related to choice, morality and spirituality.
Evolution is related to physical biological mechanisms on a population scale over generations.

These two things are not the same in any way.

If you know you respond to something unknown, in the same way that you respond to Evolution and that helps, then to not respond to something unknown when you know you can: is sin.

You might know how gravity works, but if you see someone who needs gravity to save their life and you don't show how gravity works: it is sin.

 

[Gottservant]

I've already explained the how and the why to you. If you don't want to understand, that's not on me, that's on you.
You've already been told that evolution is not a conscious act, it is simply a biological reaction of genetics to a change in the environment. The fact that you cannot, or refuse to, understand this simple fact is just getting beyond ludicrous now.

Yes but I am an agent.

Don't you get that I am asking you to contextualize at least part of your theory of Evolution, in terms of "a-g-e-n-c-y"?

Or does the language of a fish suit your aspirations to communicate what you know about Evolution with the world? You realise its not how fish communicate that gets their point across, right?

(And why harp that teaching is hard? If you don't want to be taught? Genuine inquiry, is more strength than is needed, for reasons that despite this are more lasting? (You should expect to learn something, if your theory is true?))

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Matthew 5:13 "you are the salt of the earth"

salt is preservation, we are encouraged to preserve what we can in Heaven (Matthew 6:20)

If Jesus says "we are preservation", how can then Evolution say "preservation is a biological function"? Without saying in what way?

So not a quote at all, and I'm sure you know that reference was to the use of salt as a flavour enhancer, as it continues, "But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor?"

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes but I am an agent.

Don't you get that I am asking you to contextualize at least part of your theory of Evolution, in terms of "a-g-e-n-c-y"?

There are whole fields of evolutionary biology devoted to the influence of agency, i.e. behaviour - the best known being sexual selection. Niche construction is a growing field, as well as others. But the vast majority of healthy behaviour patterns have evolved because they contribute to reproductive success in some way, however indirectly. Behaviour patterns that detract from reproductive success tend to be selected out.

 

[Shemjaza]

Thankyou. You have said it. Your "god" is shift in the odds. That's not wrong if you worship the god of odds, when you get a shift you were waiting for.

Totally false.

Evolution doesn't occur on the scale of an individual, so whatever I might be waiting for is irrelivant.

I don't have a god, so that's also a false description of my attirudes.

Yes but which connection? Even if you define gravity, you need to define whether you mean at the interstellar level, the material level or the subatomic level.

An adaption is a variation in the characteristics of a species.

Variations in characteristics of a species are caused by having a variation on their genetic structure.

Getting a new variation of genetic structure is called a mutation.

So the level is on the genetic makeup of living things.

But it can't "work" unless this is preserved in a predictable way. P-r-e-s-e-r-v-e-d.

An adaption creates a statistical advantage so that it is more likely to pass on their genes.

That's the process of preservation of the mutations: successful reproduction.

If you know you respond to something unknown, in the same way that you respond to Evolution and that helps, then to not respond to something unknown when you know you can: is sin.

You might know how gravity works, but if you see someone who needs gravity to save their life and you don't show how gravity works: it is sin.

Explain what you mean by "in the same way that you respond to Evolution", specifically how and why can that be sin?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes but I am an agent.

Don't you get that I am asking you to contextualize at least part of your theory of Evolution, in terms of "a-g-e-n-c-y"?

Or does the language of a fish suit your aspirations to communicate what you know about Evolution with the world? You realise its not how fish communicate that gets their point across, right?

(And why harp that teaching is hard? If you don't want to be taught? Genuine inquiry, is more strength than is needed, for reasons that despite this are more lasting? (You should expect to learn something, if your theory is true?))

But you don't have agency with evolution, that's what I've been saying. No person or animal has agency with regards to evolution. The changes in genes happens whether we want to or not, because of a changing environment. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I think if anyone speaks the language of fish, it is definitely you because you just speak a load of absolute rubbish. And it's with that that also proves my point that you seem completely unwilling to learn. For a person who claims that they want to learn something new, you seem hellbent on ignoring what anyone says.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm reading this, and I am not seeing evidence of preservation, at all.

Why should mating preserve anything, why does it not just create at random?

I don't suggest you should mate at random, why do you insist its better than mating with purpose?

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm reading this, and I am not seeing evidence of preservation, at all.

Why should mating preserve anything, why does it not just create at random?

When humans (and most animals) reproduce half of each parents DNA is used to create the new DNA code of the offspring. This preserves some of the genetics of the parent after they have died.

If they reproduce multiple times it gives more opportunity for more of their genetics to be preserved.

I don't suggest you should mate at random, why do you insist its better than mating with purpose?

No one is insisting that. You are making that up.

 

[Gottservant]

When humans (and most animals) reproduce half of each parents DNA is used to create the new DNA code of the offspring. This preserves some of the genetics of the parent after they have died.

Why not the DNA of more distant ancestors? How far back does the preservation go, if what you are saying about the innocence of the young is true?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why not the DNA of more distant ancestors? How far back does the preservation go, if what you are saying about the innocence of the young is true?

Lactose tolerence is something that has been continuously preserved in the genome of people of European descent, along with people from Africa and the Middle-East, and that's been dated to roughly 10,000 years ago.
Is that distant enough for you?

 

[Gottservant]

Lactose tolerance is something that has been continuously preserved in the genome of people of European descent, along with people from Africa and the Middle-East, and that's been dated to roughly 10,000 years ago.
Is that distant enough for you?

Yes, consistency: that's what I was asking for.

So you are saying only humans have this, or apes too?

Evolutionarily, there is a strong justification for an impartation "to" apes (specifically) or "from" humans (in general)?

My argument would be that design facilitates the impartation of lactose tolerance, more than lactose intolerance at random.

 

[Gottservant]

Also, given the subject of this thread: you should probably point out, the mechanism by which lactose intolerance is preserved.

It's not merely a repeatable accident.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, consistency: that's what I was asking for.

So you are saying only humans have this, or apes too?

Evolutionarily, there is a strong justification for an impartation "to" apes (specifically) or "from" humans (in general)?

My argument would be that design facilitates the impartation of lactose tolerance, more than lactose intolerance at random.

First off, apes are humans.
Secondly, the majority of mammals lose the ability the process dairy after they've been weaned off their mothers, so humans are very much the exception because we spent so much time with a dairy diet through cows and goats.

Thirdly, if you want to claim design, you need to show design.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Also, given the subject of this thread: you should probably point out, the mechanism by which lactose intolerance is preserved.

It's not merely a repeatable accident.

Nothing in evolution is an accident. Why would you think it is?

 

[Gottservant]

Nothing in evolution is an accident. Why would you think it is?

I would call expecting a design, to pop out of a mutation, an accident.

Do you look at a building and say "oh well, the dust of the first brick, became a brick" as if the bricks that followed or the brick maker were irrelevant?

Any builder that expects buildings to just "come" to him, is clinically insane, not creative.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I would call expecting a design, to pop out of a mutation, an accident.

Do you look at a building and say "oh well, the dust of the first brick, became a brick" as if the bricks that followed or the brick maker were irrelevant?

Any builder that expects buildings to just "come" to him, is clinically insane, not creative.

To claim design, you need to show design.

 

[Gottservant]

To claim design, you need to show design.

To show design, you simply need to show the set, of which design is a part (in principle).

Evolution, Creation & Attraction are the set of productively hard impartations. Evolution imparts a stronger attraction; Creation imparts a greater balance of impartations; and Attraction imparts a greater sufficiency of Evolution and Creation in the closer relationship.

I do not need to say "Evolution" belongs to its own set and nothing else; neither do I need to say "this is Creation in part" but add that it is not enough; nor do I need to say "this imparts the Attractive" as if failure on the whole only increases. Something needs to be imparted and it needs to be productive, even if nothing is generated - that hope in generation and regeneration with it, is not lost.

The problem for you, is that even though Evolution comes first, and is more attractive, it does not sustain its own prey and more than that, knowing that prey is needed is not a secret (!) and again, knowing the predator coming causes the prey to run, the prey running means that it identifies the need for leadership, leadership has the population in mind, the population in mind, means that the most adapted is sought out, the most adapted sought out, there is more than one way to escape, more than one way to escape means that the timing is important to the mateship (not that all are expected to escape but many, not that the predator be expected to agree with a fraction but a difference, not that the change surrender itself moreso, not that momentum do without predators in the wild).

The whole of it being, that to hunt prey, you first need to let prey be. If you are prey, you need to let yourself be prey. And if you need to let yourself "be prey" consistently, you need to work harder at being consistent - because being prey is actually not that hard (in most cases).

Jesus said "look at virgins, they are not simply virgins, but people who have found it hard that one virgin is different to another and have come to accept it" - why would Evolution be any different? As a productive impartation, it is not?

What I am saying fundamentally, is that if you want to be the predator and not the prey, then let the prey be ("prey" - let the reader keep noting). Stop trying to call me "Evolved" I didn't ask for nor want, that. They say being born without wisdom teeth is "evolved", but I didn't choose not to have wisdom teeth, when the prospect of Evolution of teeth came to me, I degenerated. I know I degenerated, because now I have fewer teeth!

If you want to argue against this, you are going to have to show that if I were to gain teeth: they would be better than normal teeth!

 

[Gottservant]

I've already explained the how and the why to you. If you don't want to understand, that's not on me, that's on you.
You've already been told that evolution is not a conscious act, it is simply a biological reaction of genetics to a change in the environment. The fact that you cannot, or refuse to, understand this simple fact is just getting beyond ludicrous now.

Just jumping back for a minute, I want the record to show that it has been stated many times that only populations evolve, but somehow that having a population in mind "is irrelevant", but without any mechanism demonstrated to make it irrelevant.