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

[Shemjaza]

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?

Yes, everyone carries traces or their ancestors. Filtered through all the generations inbetween.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

Some parts of the genome are essential to the most basic processes of life, so are 'highly conserved', meaning that they are found in most or all living things, because life is not possible without them.

The ubiquity of highly conserved genetic code and the distribution of differences in the less highly conserved code in various creatures is one way to determine their relationships in the tree of life, and provides strong evidence of common ancestry.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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!

You are so close to grasping the concept but then you absolutely fail in your own thinking. Evolution doesn't care if you want to be evolved or not, because biology doesn't care. Nature doesn't care. Evolution happens whether you want it to or not. The only way to stop evolution happening is to just not exist. That really is the only way to not be affected by evolution.

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.

It's not having populations in mind that is irrelevant. It's your daft comments about evolution and populations that are irrelevant.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, everyone carries traces or their ancestors. Filtered through all the generations inbetween.

I call that "design of ancestors".

You call it "chance of ancestors"?

Not sure where to go from here?

 

[Shemjaza]

I call that "design of ancestors".

You call it "chance of ancestors"?

Not sure where to go from here?

Except I don't call it "chance of ancestors", because that's silly.

We know how reproduction works, we know how genetic inheritance works and there's no evidence for design in the process.

 

[Gottservant]

Except I don't call it "chance of ancestors", because that's silly.

We know how reproduction works, we know how genetic inheritance works and there's no evidence for design in the process.

You say while referring to design, to make your point.

"Chance of ancestors"... I wonder, is the greatest possible chance of ancestors different, if survival is a given?

 

[Shemjaza]

You say while referring to design, to make your point.

No. I didn't.

There isn't design or agency in the process of reproduction. The formation of a new genetic structure at conception is a chemical process.

"Chance of ancestors"... I wonder, is the greatest possible chance of ancestors different, if survival is a given?

But survival is not a given and the chance of ones ancestors being different is zero. Nothing we do can change past events.