Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?

[Freodin]

Put another way: multiple mutations pointing to adapting first, do not need to be adapted.

Please explain, in simple terms: what do you think is an "adaption"? What is a "mutation"? How does it influence the individuum, and how does it influence "future generations"?

 

[Gottservant]

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.

I say something simple, like "put it the other way"...

...and people say "oh nos! that doesn't make senses; why Gotti, why don't you thunk like the rest of us has made"

If you understood how hard you are making simple choices complicated, you would point the finger much much less.

I can't have a glass half empty, when it comes to Evolution, because you want a particular cultration; neither can I have a glass half full, of something other than Evolution, because you want (you and your cultration) to have center stage.

Wake up! Evolution is not some ubiquitous repetition of a spiritual power, that when you worship it, your sins are buried in an unretrievable part of the Earth - you are culpable for your actions, even if it is a simple cultration, that is other than what God wants.

I am taking a stand, for the Evolution of Power that God grants - in the end, I will stand or fall, based on what Evolution of Power I pass on: you saying "no, you can't pass it on" is precisely your problem, not mine (I have told you you do not need to condemn any one for not Evolving the way you do and you still insist "Evolution still can't be understood from the perspective of choice"). I don't need Evolution to have a very real effect on the future of humanity, but I am holding out the olive branch because I know I would resent someone with understanding not sharing with me.

You don't need to promise me "Evolution will do amazing things for your life" because I am indifferent to production in general - you look to me like peddlers with a poisonous product, trying to whitewash the dangers of playing fast and loose with meaning. I resist making meaning your way and you hate me. God cares about the message you are sending - that people should not trust the Evolution of the Power of God, but now you have been found out: you have been told you are in error and you paste denial all over the internet.

I don't blame you for that, but where do you get off telling me what my history should be? Have you forgotten what Christ did for you, so easily?

 

[Gottservant]

Please explain, in simple terms: what do you think is an "adaption"? What is a "mutation"? How does it influence the individuum, and how does it influence "future generations"?

An adaptation is a successful use of instinct or essence, in principle.

A mutation is a corruption of the genetic code.

The claim is that when there is a corruption of genetic code, instinct and essence no longer work predictably.

This (claim) is in direction contradiction to the fact that God is able to wait for someone, until there genetic code is restored.

I don't miss out on an adaptation, simply because I do or do not mutate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

Taking a spiritual position on a biological question is stupid.

Adaptations happen because of mutations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

An adaptation is a successful use of instinct or essence, in principle.

A mutation is a corruption of the genetic code.

The claim is that when there is a corruption of genetic code, instinct and essence no longer work predictably.

This (claim) is in direction contradiction to the fact that God is able to wait for someone, until there genetic code is restored.

I don't miss out on an adaptation, simply because I do or do not mutate.

It's these sort of comments that show to people that you don't care about what you've been told. You've been told what an adaptation is, you've been told what a mutation is, but you just ignore what is said.

Freodin is right. It's getting old and ridiculous now and to be honest, people are much more likely to call you a troll now.

 

[Gottservant]

Taking a spiritual position on a biological question is stupid.

You misunderstand me. I take a spiritual position as pertains to me, but I dislocate this fact in order to be objective about the determination of the biological science (of Evolution) - as a layman desiring principle, would understand.

Adaptations happen because of mutations.

Happening does not require mutation, to be design.

A difference in conductivity does enough to light up our minds with thoughts: you notion that we can't choose between those thoughts, does not bear out reality.

Right now I have a choice of emphasising "happening" not requiring mutations, or thoughts being distinguished. If I made that choice consistent, it is likely that my children would turn out differently.

 

[Gottservant]

It's these sort of comments that show to people that you don't care about what you've been told. You've been told what an adaptation is, you've been told what a mutation is, but you just ignore what is said.

Freodin is right. It's getting old and ridiculous now and to be honest, people are much more likely to call you a troll now.

I don't understand why you don't understand, that my God is not afraid of being called a troll.

You don't seem to grasp that you cannot disavow Creation, simply because of whatever exception it is, being proof to you that your children being senseless will not disappoint you (if you believe in Evolution the wrong way)?

You seem to be saying you don't need advice on how to implement your obligation to Evolution to be efficient - that reeks of hubris!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't understand why you don't understand, that my God is not afraid of being called a troll.

You don't seem to grasp that you cannot disavow Creation, simply because of whatever exception it is, being proof to you that your children being senseless will not disappoint you (if you believe in Evolution the wrong way)?

You seem to be saying you don't need advice on how to implement your obligation to Evolution to be efficient - that reeks of hubris!

No-one is calling God a troll. We're getting very close to calling YOU a troll because you keep repeating these insipid questions and statements after you've been told they're wrong time and time again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You misunderstand me. I take a spiritual position as pertains to me, but I dislocate this fact in order to be objective about the determination of the biological science (of Evolution) - as a layman desiring principle, would understand.

Why are you even taking a spiritual position on a biological question to begin with? Why does a question about biology threaten your spirituality?

Happening does not require mutation, to be design.

A difference in conductivity does enough to light up our minds with thoughts: you notion that we can't choose between those thoughts, does not bear out reality.

Right now I have a choice of emphasising "happening" not requiring mutations, or thoughts being distinguished. If I made that choice consistent, it is likely that my children would turn out differently.

Again: adaptations happen because of mutations. You can try and waffle and BS as much as you want, but that does not change the fact that you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Freodin]

I don't understand why you don't understand, that my God is not afraid of being called a troll.

You don't seem to grasp that you cannot disavow Creation, simply because of whatever exception it is, being proof to you that your children being senseless will not disappoint you (if you believe in Evolution the wrong way)?

You seem to be saying you don't need advice on how to implement your obligation to Evolution to be efficient - that reeks of hubris!

Take a step back please. Just for a second. Take a look at two little things from this post here, and what it was a response to...

"...people are much more likely to call YOU a troll now."
"...my God is not afraid of being called a troll."
"...that reeks of hubris!"

So, people criticize YOU, and you attribute any criticism of YOU to criticism of your God. Thus equating your position to the position of God. You take your obstinacy, your inability to listen, and project it on your God.

You are equating yourself to your God. And you have the arrogance to talk about hubris.


I should have stopped after my first post here on this thread, lamenting the uselessness of trying to talk to you. I should have known better, but I admit of having troubles of overcomming my optimistic nature.
But I am capable of learning, even if it takes multiple mistakes. I won't repeat that mistake again. Don't worry, Gottservant, I won't try to talk to you ever again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hi there,

So question is:

Why don't you adapt first, and mutate later?

Get me?

There are two forms of adaptation, physiological and evolutionary.

The first is when an individual physically adapts to circumstances, e.g. becomes acclimatised to high altitude, becomes physically stronger through exercise, gets calluses, becomes tanned in the sun, etc. No significant permanent genetic changes occur, although the expression of some genes might change.

The second occurs in populations through genetic mutations that give certain individuals a reproductive advantage and so tend to propagate down the generations and spread through the population.

Physiological adaptation does tend to precede mutation in some situations. For example, when a population moves to high altitude, or the climate changes, becoming hotter or colder in a relatively short time, individuals will adapt physiologically to the new conditions.

But any mutations in subsequent generations that improve that adaptation will have a selective advantage, so over multiple generations, the population will adapt genetically, i.e. there will be evolutionary adaptation.

It's worth noting that the degree to which individuals can adapt to changed conditions is also influenced by their genes, so some individuals will likely have a selective advantage at the outset (as a result of prior mutations), and those genes will be passed on and spread through the population at the same time as novel advantageous mutations appear and are selected for.

 

[Gottservant]

"...people are much more likely to call YOU a troll now."

You've lumped quotes from different people together - it's confusing.

Think of talking to me as though talking to a layman, just with too many words.

If you believe it (what you believe) simply enough, in the end you will thank me (for taking the time, to think about it).

 

[Gottservant]

Why are you even taking a spiritual position on a biological question to begin with? Why does a question about biology threaten your spirituality?

You have introduced the notion of "threat" - that was not my intention.

Again: adaptations happen because of mutations. You can try and waffle and BS as much as you want, but that does not change the fact that you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about.

The fear of mutation, is not enough (to justify adaptation)?

The way I see it, you want the batters on the field before the fielders.

Again, I am not trying to say you can't do things another way - but at some point you have to realise, sharing the ecology does not come down to wiping parts of it out (for the sake of the fittest?).

Just be happy to admit that your instinct is different than mine, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Gottservant]

A lion takes pride, that his children will be great hunters.

A sheep takes pride, that his children will be one of the flock.

There is nothing about a lion, that needs to incorporate being one of the flock, to be a good hunter; nor is there anything about being a sheep, that needs to incorporate being a great hunter, to be a great member of the flock.

These things are possible, but they are extraneous, there is nothing implicit about a creature's belonging to a particular species - that can't be expressed spiritually, while maintaining a place of importance in the species.

What you are talking about as Evolutionists, is grafting - the idea that a creature having the adaptations of a particular species other than his own, will ultimately want to be that species. Plants graft temporarily, not permanently.

Does that mean grafting has no benefit? No, it just means "don't look beyond the graft, for evidence of the Evolution of the Power of God (when the subject is a particular graft)".

Does that mean that Evolution is wrong? No, it just means that it has limits, like almost everything does.

How do we negotiate a human society, where there is a division over what instinct to pursue when it comes to the species? By remaining true to the ecology that human society has created: one of personal faith and due diligence to mateship.

Will Evolution miss out, if a number of the human race put adaptation first? No, there will still be plenty of potential acolytes who prefer to take chances with what they pass on to the next generation - it is the nature of an ecology that it flourishes better when there are a number of choices to choose from. Just remember, they played with dice to see who would claim Jesus' clothes - it will be no different with His definition of Creation.

 

[Gottservant]

What selection pressure, requires you to mutate first?

If there is no selection pressure, why can't I rest first?

Which is better: a rested adaptation, or an adaptation of necessity?

 

[Shemjaza]

What selection pressure, requires you to mutate first?

If there is no selection pressure, why can't I rest first?

Which is better: a rested adaptation, or an adaptation of necessity?

No such pressure exists because it doesn't make sense.

In an evolutionary context: You do not mutate; You do not adapt; and You do not evolve.

It doesn't apply over an individuals lifetime.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You have introduced the notion of "threat" - that was not my intention.

The topic of evolution must do something to you since you try and turn biological science into spirtuality and theology whenever you can.

The fear of mutation, is not enough (to justify adaptation)?

The way I see it, you want the batters on the field before the fielders.

Again, I am not trying to say you can't do things another way - but at some point you have to realise, sharing the ecology does not come down to wiping parts of it out (for the sake of the fittest?).

Just be happy to admit that your instinct is different than mine, that's all I'm saying.

And again, all you are doing is talking nonsense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What you are talking about as Evolutionists, is grafting - the idea that a creature having the adaptations of a particular species other than his own, will ultimately want to be that species.

No. That is not what evolutionists are talking about - it's nonsense.

 

[ruthiesea]

Simply put, there are basically three types of mutations.
Positive: increases the chance of a species survival and reproduction;
Neutral: has no affect on continuation of a species; and
Negative: reduces a species chances of survival.

If a mutation is positive and increases chances of survival that is an adaptation. A neutral mutation may, as the environment changes, prove to be positive or negative.

 

[Frank Robert]

What selection pressure, requires you to mutate first?

If there is no selection pressure, why can't I rest first?

Which is better: a rested adaptation, or an adaptation of necessity?

What mechanism allows for adaptation w/o a mutation?