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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I reinterpret the information that is given to me, until I find, as I have done there is a crack - like the presumption that mutation is first - or a need - such as the theoreticisation of preservation (within the context of more sustainable Evolution) or if I don't find these, then what needs to be exaggerated, so that I don't fall foul of my own duty before God, to go the extra mile (that is, with people that think they can describe me - what I stand for - with a theory that applies to everyone).

Partly I am to blame for not being God, and hence able to tell you what you most need to evolve, and partly you are to blame, for attempting to describe me as flesh and bone, with no provable desire to praise God - if you gave me a choice, that would be a much smaller problem, but here we are.

Why do you need to reinterpret the information?

 

[Shemjaza]

What if I want something to be preserved for a longer amount of time, do I preserve waiting? Or do I preserve what changes through waiting?

Then that is irrelevant to evolution because it doesn't operate on the time scale or population scale of evolution.

Better to preserve, than conserve.

And what is already there, if there is an affinity: for what can be better preserved?

Preservation seems to indicate that a deliberate action is occurring. There isn't evidence for that happening in nature.

The conservation of traits is simply a consequence of them being more likely to survive from generation to generation.

It isn't a choice or a decision, so questions of personal preference or morality are not appropriate or relevant.

 

[Gottservant]

Purple monkeys grow on upside down car horns.

Come on now, I am being patient with you.

There is a difference between changing because you don't know what else to do, and changing because it is likely to save what is changed - you just aren't justifying a particular course of action, because.

I mean try to look beyond me, why would it matter what you interpret, unless how you interpret was at least partly affected by choice?

If every species but your own changed in response to selection pressures that affected the world, you would seriously still trust Evolution, to work out whether you should respond or not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Come on now, I am being patient with you.

I've been more than patient with you, as has everyone else that is on the threads you create.

There is a difference between changing because you don't know what else to do, and changing because it is likely to save what is changed - you just aren't justifying a particular course of action, because.

I mean try to look beyond me, why would it matter what you interpret, unless how you interpret was at least partly affected by choice?

If every species but your own changed in response to selection pressures that affected the world, you would seriously still trust Evolution, to work out whether you should respond or not?

I've said this so many times it's becoming stupid that I have to repeat it: evolution isn't something that any being has a choice about. Evolution is a natural biological force that occurs when the environment changes and forces animals to change with it. Evolution is simple just a biological reaction to environmental change.

It's not something to trust or believe in. It's not a philosophy or religion.

 

[Gottservant]

Why do you need to reinterpret the information?

If it cannot be reappropriated, it's not information.

Really I am doing your work for you, trying to work out what about Evolution is most informative - if you don't like the job I am doing, choose something that you think is informative and show me that.

It's not like I hold up the Word of God and say, "you must remember this Word to the letter" (of the Law).

On the other hand, you refuse to add what is constructive for your theory, on the assumption that you are perfect at keeping what is already there?

Perfect theory, is like anything that is perfect, to a degree you are tempted to change it for something you don't want.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If it cannot be reappropriated, it's not information.

But reappropriation isn't reinterpretation. Those are two separate things.

Do you even actually want to learn about evolution?

 

[Gottservant]

I've been more than patient with you, as has everyone else that is on the threads you create.



I've said this so many times it's becoming stupid that I have to repeat it: evolution isn't something that any being has a choice about. Evolution is a natural biological force that occurs when the environment changes and forces animals to change with it. Evolution is simple just a biological reaction to environmental change.

It's not something to trust or believe in. It's not a philosophy or religion.

Yes, but you still have to demonstrate how faith in Evolution, matures.

I don't know why you don't get that?

Otherwise, you won't know what is justified at all.

Don't let that be the end of your inquiry about life and what it means, God is too important to put down His choice to create you, to a carefree carelessness about chance.

Like somehow God created chance, for which the response to which was "try again".

Chance upon chance, is not "more", it is the same.

I will get through to you eventually, you are dropping too many thought experiments (half empty half full evolution, ubiquity of evolution, restarting evolution, evolution reemerging) to be sure it is leading to something, you want it to.

Getting choice for nothing sounds great, until you realise you are expected to "do" something about it.

What would you preserve most, was the poll at the start of this thread, I wonder if that has prompted you to think?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, but you still have to demonstrate how faith in Evolution, matures.

I don't know why you don't get that?

Because evolution isn't a faith system. It's a fact of biological science, plain and simple. I do not get why you don't get this.

 

[Gottservant]

But reappropriation isn't reinterpretation. Those are two separate things.

Do you even actually want to learn about evolution?

I love you man, but if you keep asking me do I want to learn, when you give me no choice to learn: I am going to have to be happy, in a way I have never been (happy) before.

I think the truth is I want to take advantage of Evolution, in doing good works, for God.

If there is no expediency in Evolution, once I know how I want to serve God, you and I are both wasting our time discussing it.

 

[Gottservant]

Because evolution isn't a faith system. It's a fact of biological science, plain and simple. I do not get why you don't get this.

There is more at stake than "what Evolution is".

Are people guided by what they believe?, that is what is at stake.

You need an answer, if you haven't thought of it already - which is why I am here?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I love you man, but if you keep asking me do I want to learn, when you give me no choice to learn: I am going to have to be happy, in a way I have never been (happy) before.

I think the truth is I want to take advantage of Evolution, in doing good works, for God.

If there is no expediency in Evolution, once I know how I want to serve God, you and I are both wasting our time discussing it.

If that's a threat than it is honestly the single weirdest threat I've ever seen.

I keep asking because I've not seen you show an actual intent to learn about evolution because you keep asking these asinine and nonsensical questions.

Explain what you mean by 'take advantage of evolution, in doing good works, for God'.

And why do you want expediency in evolution? What do you hope to get from evolution being convenient?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is more at stake than "what Evolution is".

Are people guided by what they believe?, that is what is at stake.

You need an answer, if you haven't thought of it already - which is why I am here?

Yes, and evolution doesn't answer that question, and it never will. Evolution is simply how life changes as a result of environmental pressures and changes.
If you want the question "why am I here?" answered, then you need to look to philosophy, not biological science.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, and evolution doesn't answer that question, and it never will. Evolution is simply how life changes as a result of environmental pressures and changes.
If you want the question "why am I here?" answered, then you need to look to philosophy, not biological science.

It's not "why am I here?" I want an answer to, but "why is Evolution here?".

I mean you really give me no choice, I give you the ten commandments, but you give me no choice. Ten nothing?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not "why am I here?" I want an answer to, but "why is Evolution here?".

Evolution is here because life is here. Evolution is life changing in reaction to the environment's changing. That's all it is.
Why is this hard for you to grasp?

I mean you really give me no choice, I give you the ten commandments, but you give me no choice. Ten nothing?

More nonsense again.

 

[Gottservant]

If that's a threat than it is honestly the single weirdest threat I've ever seen.

I keep asking because I've not seen you show an actual intent to learn about evolution because you keep asking these asinine and nonsensical questions.

Explain what you mean by 'take advantage of evolution, in doing good works, for God'.

And why do you want expediency in evolution? What do you hope to get from evolution being convenient?

There is nothing asinine about preservation.

If you can't preserve anything, you die.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is nothing asinine about preservation.

If you can't preserve anything, you die.

True, there is nothing asinine about preservation. Your questions however are asinine.

And I told you: natural selection is the preserver. Animals with non-beneficial mutations die, while animals with beneficial mutations thrive and are able to reproduce. That is the preserver.

 

[Larniavc]

Preserved means "despite change", so you have not understood what I said.

But you’re using the word preserved when you should use the word conserve.

Did you not know that?

 

[Larniavc]

Better to preserve, than conserve.

And what is already there, if there is an affinity: for what can be better preserved?

You have never made sense. I suspect this will not change. Good day.

 

[Gottservant]

Evolution is here because life is here. Evolution is life changing in reaction to the environment's changing. That's all it is.
Why is this hard for you to grasp?

More nonsense again.

Ahhh! "Life is here"; you feel a connection with "life" and you are prepared to be tested by your environment.

That makes sense. So there is somehow a tension between life and non-life that being tested on, improves.

I thought the aim was to make evolution more complex, until superior adaptation overwhelmed the relevant selection pressures.

You are answering my question in a way, but you are not being clear about when you feel you are preserving your life well and when not.

For example, don't the ten commandments make it easier for people to coexist? Why wouldn't coexistance be something that Evolution would want to harness?

 

[Gottservant]

But you’re using the word preserved when you should use the word conserve.

Did you not know that?

Saying I have a motive you don't justify, hardly proves the interpretation is false.