• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Adaptations happen BECAUSE of mutations.

No.

I think the choice is arbitrary.

Imagine a world where adaptations only happened in one order: in terms of Evolution, there would be far less development to prey upon.

A sufficiently good adaptation, can only help more, if it is able to evolve in that order.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,003
7,389
31
Wales
✟422,348.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
No.

I think the choice is arbitrary.

Imagine a world where adaptations only happened in one order: in terms of Evolution, there would be far less development to prey upon.

A sufficiently good adaptation, can only help more, if it is able to evolve in that order.

Then you are absolutely wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Then you are absolutely wrong.

Yes but what evidence can you give, that Creation didn't decide to mutate later?

You are being unscientific? You should be assuming nothing will interfere with the experiment (as to what can be evolved)?
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,003
7,389
31
Wales
✟422,348.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Yes but what evidence can you give, that Creation didn't decide to mutate later?

You are being unscientific? You should be assuming nothing will interfere with the experiment (as to what can be evolved)?

You can't give any evidence to support your claims, and you never have and never will.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
You can't give any evidence to support your claims, and you never have and never will.

No, I am indifferent to whether mutation or adaptation goes first.

It is you that needs to provide evidence that it only happens one way.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,003
7,389
31
Wales
✟422,348.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
No, I am indifferent to whether mutation or adaptation goes first.

It is you that needs to provide evidence that it only happens one way.

If you're indifferent, why did you ask the question "Why don't you adapt first and mutate later?"?
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi there,

So question is:
Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?
Get me?

The glass is half full after all!
It sounds like your are referring to the idea that God hard-wired or “front-loaded” everything. The problem is, the purveyors of that idea have never produced any scientific evidence for front-loading.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,512
44,627
Los Angeles Area
✟994,825.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?

In a sense, this is the idea behind Lamarckism. If athlete X builds up her muscles, and passes that on to her children, who will be born more muscle-y. Adaptation first, followed by hypothetical changes to genetics that allow the trait to pass on to future generations.

But it turns out that's not how the universe works. The idea has been tested and, apart from little asterisks here and there, Lamarckism has been rejected because the hypothesis has been disproven.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,451
3,990
47
✟1,107,261.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
No.

I think the choice is arbitrary.

Imagine a world where adaptations only happened in one order: in terms of Evolution, there would be far less development to prey upon.

A sufficiently good adaptation, can only help more, if it is able to evolve in that order.
It's a matter of cause and effect.

It's like claiming that something being wet was the cause of pouring water on it, it doesn't make any sense.

People have tried to explain this exact point to you in other threads.

An adaption is a beneficial new variation in a species, new variations are caused by mutation.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
If you're indifferent, why did you ask the question "Why don't you adapt first and mutate later?"?

I take a spiritual position, partly because I am always looking for ways to expand my interpretation of the words of Jesus (I don't like being told a particular dogma, is impervious or more important, than my desire to learn from that).

What I don't want, is for the science to "fail" - the possibility of interpreting adaptation differently, is part of my effort to keep the science flourishing.

The science not failing, then, requires you to expand your dogma to accomodate, positive and negative experiments with the fundamental concept (a fundamentality that you unfortunately but understandingly want to protect).

What annoys me is placing the contrast in plain sight, you still seem to believe you are more invincible than that?

It's not wrong to insist on one interpretation over another, but only if you reserve expectation for something more than expression (in theory or otherwise) - I mean you literally can not remove the unknown from your theory and still retain the same credibility.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
It's a matter of cause and effect.

It's like claiming that something being wet was the cause of pouring water on it, it doesn't make any sense.

People have tried to explain this exact point to you in other threads.

An adaption is a beneficial new variation in a species, new variations are caused by mutation.

It remains arbitrary.

Nothing you have said contradicts the possibility that the batting order could be improved, while the dimensions of the pitch remain the same.

I don't think that Lamarckism is valid in its own right, that's not progress either.

There should be a choice.

If I developed adaptation after adaptation, and needed to weed them out (for survival reasons), I could easily jettison the more mutated (that would increase my survivability, by reducing the load).

The alternative for you, is too keep mutations, in the hope that the overloading of pressure needed to achieve survival under such conditions, will produce a higher level of spontaneous adaptiveness - gratuitous in every situation, except where you are able to achieve the optimum adaptiveness, for each and every selection pressure, by pure chance.

I'm not saying you can't take that chance (of purity) or even that you can't succeed at it, just that you are not forced to, nor does failing to compromise anything specific, nor does the difficulty of it necessarily win you a greater mate.

I stand by the idea that choosing to adapt on my own, does not immediately compromise my chances at survival.

What I should not need to do, in principle: is compromise adaptations I have already, because of a substandard expectation that mutations are always needed first!

If I belong to a family (even the human family - to wit) my loyalty to the family comes first - I am not allowed to develop a bad attitude, simply because I have pretensions of granduer about what they family should be to me.

Show me how to consistently choose mutation, and I will show you how to consistently adapt (without choice)!

If you knew God, you would not have this problem of how to maintain control over the development of the species: God does not interrupt Evolution, with mutations; nor do mutations represent a point of unchanging failure, that Jesus can't forgive. As long as I am going without a chance to mutate, Evolution dictates that the influence of selection pressures in that circumstance, will continue to produce a load that demands more of the Evolution of the Power of God, than I can hope to have and evolve without Him.

If I have given something up, for God, God promises that I will get more again - if I have given up Evolution for God, God promises that I will get more again (with persecutions, as He said).
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,451
3,990
47
✟1,107,261.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
It remains arbitrary.

Nothing you have said contradicts the possibility that the batting order could be improved, while the dimensions of the pitch remain the same.

No, it is literally impossible.

If I'm standing on top of a block, I can't choose to walk away from the block and do the jumping off part later.

Adaptations are caused by mutations so the order is completely fixed by cause and effect.

I don't think that Lamarckism is valid in its own right, that's not progress either.
Lamarckism was demonstrated to be wrong because it wasn't supported by evidence, not because someone didn't like the mood of its implications.

There should be a choice.

But there isn't. Reality and evidence are what they are.

If I developed adaptation after adaptation, and needed to weed them out (for survival reasons), I could easily jettison the more mutated (that would increase my survivability, by reducing the load).

That's an impossible concept because that doesn't happen on the scale of an individual over their lifetime.

But the time you are born you have any evolutionary adaptations you will ever have and no ammount of choice will change that.

The alternative for you, is too keep mutations, in the hope that the overloading of pressure needed to achieve survival under such conditions, will produce a higher level of spontaneous adaptiveness - gratuitous in every situation, except where you are able to achieve the optimum adaptiveness, for each and every selection pressure, by pure chance.

You can't change your mutations or your adaptations... you are stuck with what you are born with.

I'm not saying you can't take that chance (of purity) or even that you can't succeed at it, just that you are not forced to, nor does failing to compromise anything specific, nor does the difficulty of it necessarily win you a greater mate.

Yes you are stuck with it.

I stand by the idea that choosing to adapt on my own, does not immediately compromise my chances at survival.

There's no choice, so it's irrelevant on an evolutionary scale what you want.

What I should not need to do, in principle: is compromise adaptations I have already, because of a substandard expectation that mutations are always needed first!

It's not an expectation, it's a fact.

If I belong to a family (even the human family - to wit) my loyalty to the family comes first - I am not allowed to develop a bad attitude, simply because I have pretensions of granduer about what they family should be to me.

Show me how to consistently choose mutation, and I will show you how to consistently adapt (without choice)!

You don't choose and you don't get new mutations and adaptations over your life.

If you knew God, you would not have this problem of how to maintain control over the development of the species: God does not interrupt Evolution, with mutations; nor do mutations represent a point of unchanging failure, that Jesus can't forgive. As long as I am going without a chance to mutate, Evolution dictates that the influence of selection pressures in that circumstance, will continue to produce a load that demands more of the Evolution of the Power of God, than I can hope to have and evolve without Him.

Individuals don't evolve.

If I have given something up, for God, God promises that I will get more again - if I have given up Evolution for God, God promises that I will get more again (with persecutions, as He said).

That's irrelevant to evolution.

You changing or being changed over your lifetime is not evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
How do you know that choosing adaptations first, was itself not a mutation, to begin with?

The evidence keeps piling up; you don't know how much you need to mutate, without information, and adapting evidently can make something of information without changing it - the being information, is itself its own justification for change.

If adaptations first was itself from a mutation, you could not disavow its efficacy?

To me, its the same thing as God giving me adaptations, without mutation - I can do it perfectly, and not suffer the consequences!
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
That's what species have been doing from the start: adapting.

You should be focussing on how difficult it is to adapt, without mutating too much.

No mutation is going to give you warning, without also doing damage (in principle).

You have to recognize the mutation in spite of the adaptation, at some point, doing it your way (that's dangerous!).
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,451
3,990
47
✟1,107,261.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
How do you know that choosing adaptations first, was itself not a mutation, to begin with?
It isn't because adaptations aren't chosen and choosing something can't be a mutation.

The evidence keeps piling up; you don't know how much you need to mutate, without information, and adapting evidently can make something of information without changing it - the being information, is itself its own justification for change.

There is not evidence for that.

And evolution is not about individuals mutating over their lifetime.

If adaptations first was itself from a mutation, you could not disavow its efficacy?

That isn't possible, because "adaptations first" is a nonsense concept.

To me, its the same thing as God giving me adaptations, without mutation - I can do it perfectly, and not suffer the consequences!

Any change to an individual over their life that is not a genetic change passed on to offsprisg is irrelevant to evolution regardless of its origin.

That's what species have been doing from the start: adapting.

Species adapt, individual do not.

You should be focussing on how difficult it is to adapt, without mutating too much.

A mutation is just a genetic change. It's the only source of new evolutionary adaptations.

No mutation is going to give you warning, without also doing damage (in principle).

Given that it has already happened before you are born that is of course impossible.

You have to recognize the mutation in spite of the adaptation, at some point, doing it your way (that's dangerous!).

Mutations are also not choices and the mutation of new adaptations is not something relevant to the course of your life.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
For a while - an admittedly long while - it was funny. But by now, this spiel gets very old.

Gottservant comes in, posting the analogy of "If 2+2 equals 1, why can't I have it equal 6?"
People start to explain very simple, very fundamental maths to him.
Gottservant doesn't listen and goes on to say "No, I don't think so. You are wrong, because God! Why can't 2+2 be purple? I think God can make it purple!"

He hasn't listened to anything people have been telling him for years now. He won't start listening now.
It's useless.
 
Upvote 0