On Natural Selection

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Okay, so here's my understanding of natural selection;

Creature A replicates so many times until a small change occurs because of adaptation to environment, requirement for getting food etc resulting in creature B.

Somewhere along the line creature C, D, and E appear too.

Then A,B,C,D and E with their various pro's and con's are pitted against each other based on number, so there is two primary functions: KILL, COPULATE.

Depending on who does better or worse, some will go extinct or more likely just change into creature F, and some will remain with their freedom to kill, and copulate ( I won't talk about, which one is better necessarily, because who says that being forced to change and therefore benefit yourself is a bad thing, but you can imagine the powerful lion in his gym shorts and shades thinking "I can kill and copulate, I'm the ruler of the pride, i dont need to evolve. . . .'hey b***h get over here!!' ")


And so on and so on.



Now, here's where I make my point :p

Is this also not EXACTLY how, say, the economy works? Or music: Indie band A, then indie bands replicate again and again and change a little each time until one braches off into Indie pop and one into punk and various things happen to cause them to evolve

Or: Car A, millions of replicas are made, whoever makes more money evolves, makes new cars, an estate version etc

Its all just a copy of a copy of a copy, shawshank redemption? thats what he means.

I certainly notice this all the time, evolution is everywhere, (...............)
things just replicate and replicate and a little bit changes each time until you have something different, its like phases, frequencies, generations

Idea's are another one, but im sure its obvious by this point how it works

Or at least if you're not with me now then you wont be ;p


Now, do the cars replicate on their own? Does the music make itself? Can there be ideas without a mind?

Consider this: if tomorrow came and no one on the whole planet left their house or moved or thought, would ANY of this stuff actually exist? The economy, money, music, relationships etc etc, like sure the objects exist, but the objects dont do anything on their own, none of it has any meaning or relevance without human experience, without consciousness applied to it!

If we all stopped, even for one minute, so would the world.


And so my conclusion is this:


Evolution exists, it can be observed, and can be said to be real on some levels and interpretations of reality, but evolution CANNOT happen without two seperate selves, the physical, and the mental, the car, and the designer, the ego and the self, even in the brain there is two sections that communicate with each other and that is how we reflect on ourselves.


The car did not appear by itself, first someone made the wheel, then someone made the axle, then someone made the engine, if no consciousness went out and created these things then the car could not be, and just to tickle richard dawkins balls, how different is the car from the body? really? The body is a machine, all bodies.

And we all know a car can't drive itself,


Remember earlier when we all didnt move for one day? Imagine if you lay awake, happily and aloof all day and did absolutely nothing, thought nothing, the economy wouldnt exist, the tv wouldnt work, that business meeting with andrew at 3.15 would mean nothing because the words business, tv, work, andrew, meet etc would mean nothing to you

And all those things you might think about yourself, that are ALL related to your interactions with other people and objects would mean nothing would they?

But you still exist dont you? despite all those things that you thought you were you ''I'm nancy im an organ donor I work at mcdonalds ahaha facebook mcvities gaga" YOU still exist, but what you?

Are you a machine? Can the Engine (the brain) push the pedal? (oh and anyone hear einsteins proof that movement is impossible really?

And if YOU were to step out the car what would be left?.................

Well, what would be left is GOD, pure and simple, that's GOD, or probably better called AUM

and another thing, that... is your true self.



The objects do not create themselves, first he made the atom, then the cell, then bacteria and such
just like the wheel, the axle, the engine.

And at his various whims which we are not to know, and cannot know unless we become our true selves by renouncing ego, the part of ourselves that we think is ourself, the mind that gives money meaning, the driver of the car, the universe evolves, it is the object, he is the mind that gives it meaning, he is all living things, we are individual living things.


We are that person happily lying on the bed with no worries, in natural bliss, in fact, we are not the body but only inhabit it for a time like a car, causing the ego to evolve and the body with it.

But we must drive the car out of the city, step out, and walk in the meadows of heaven.


Now, before satan takes his chance, im going to abolish any possible misinterpretations,

The doctrine that everything is GOD at its core is not heresy, because it does not say that david mcarthur or sandra sanderson is GOD because even the name is part of the ego, it says that GOD is the core of everything, me AND you, everything is created by him and is given context by him (and i cant really correctly say him or her either, but its just easy :p haha) so it cannot be an 'I am GOD' doctrine, it is simply a good description of what god actually is.

AND

by saying step out the machine of the body, I obviously dont mean kill yourself, I mean meditate, when you meditate your mind and body basically go into the same state as sleep, but YOU stay awake, and deep sleep is almost exactly the same as death, look it up. Anyway, this is how you become assured that a soul, or self, exists outside the body.


The Koran says about GOD: He is the Hearer, the Knower


The Bhagavad Gita says: The Lord lives in the heart of all living creatures


The Bible say: I AM that I AM

And I'll add: YOU are That I AM




P.S: I live in a boring grey town in scotland, and whenever I talk about this kind of thing to anyone they just roll their eyes and sigh basically, so the way I see it, I would rather have someone who was actually interested, but disagreed, to contest me, than just sheer apathy, so if you find anything wrong with my post in your opinion then feel free to debunk, my faith in GOD will not be shaken, but hey, I might evolve a little .... :p




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by simplyLOVE
 


I watched a tv documentry once about Lions in Africa. The was a part of the story where the mother lioness was bringing up her young cubs, about 3 of them. There was no father lion just her. And she went of hunting for food and left cubs to play.

What happened was another male lion wandered in and killed two of the cubs and the third escaped climbing up tree. The reasn why he did this was because he wanted to mate with female and he knows she wont mate if she has cubs...supposed explanation for their attrocity

I always remember to this day one little cub lion being corned by the male and defiantly looking up into his face, and then the cub giving this thrusting movement with its little paw and letting out a last fercious little raw. As if he was declaring declaring his sovereinty and existance as a Lion to the world. The the large Lion took his one Paw and swiped it and then quick bite to crush cub to death quickely.

This brought home to me what natural selection really means.






edit on 22-10-2012 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Well...

That was interesting. I disagree with pretty much your entire OP.
But I give you kudos for managing to tie all that into one post.

My brain does that hopping around thing too, so it does make sense if you subscribe to that type of stuff. Which I don't, but it was fun to read.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by simplyLOVE
 







by saying step out the machine of the body, I obviously dont mean kill yourself, I mean meditate, when you meditate your mind and body basically go into the same state as sleep, but YOU stay awake, and deep sleep is almost exactly the same as death, look it up. Anyway, this is how you become assured that a soul, or self, exists outside the body.



You realize if you manage to convince taxation department people, they will be thinking if we get into a deep sleep with can make contact with dead people and ask for the money the owe us.

No longer a certainty death allows escaping the taxman.




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Uh....No.

So you have white moths living against the white bark of trees. If there is accidentally a black moth, an aberration, and it lives against the bark of a white tree, it gets eaten. So black moths don't do well in a forest of white-barked trees; white moths do. Natural selection. A genetic change, a cosmic ray turning the white gene to black? Epic fail, like most of them.

Now it's England in the 18th century. Coal-fired stoves emit a lot of pollution that falls on the white barked trees and turn them black with soot. Now the white moths stand out, and they get eaten, but the few black moths that are there survive. Soon thare are a lot more black moths than white moths. Again, natural selection. The soot represents a simple change in the environment. In this case, the genetic mutation for black turns into a positive survival factor.

No God required.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by simplyLOVE
Okay, so here's my understanding of natural selection;

Creature A replicates so many times until a small change occurs because of adaptation to environment, requirement for getting food etc resulting in creature B.

Evolution exists, it can be observed, and can be said to be real on some levels and interpretations of reality, but evolution CANNOT happen without two seperate selves, the physical, and the mental, the car, and the designer, the ego and the self, even in the brain there is two sections that communicate with each other and that is how we reflect on ourselves.


Natural selection works on anything capable of reproducing (only asexual species replicate). Sexual reproduction by meiosis results in increased genetic variation due to re/combination. I refuse to look at the world in simple binary oppositions.



Originally posted by simplyLOVE

The car did not appear by itself, first someone made the wheel, then someone made the axle, then someone made the engine, if no consciousness went out and created these things then the car could not be, and just to tickle richard dawkins balls, how different is the car from the body? really? The body is a machine, all bodies.


You are just rehashing the irreducible complexity argument. Cars are not living organisms and they do not contain DNA which can undergo mutations and be altered by the mechanisms of evolution.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Natural selection isn't always direct competition, ie pitting species against one another to kill or copulate as you said. Sometimes a species might migrate to another area and fit in better. If that happens the population will grow and might eventually take the old territory back. Sometimes a genetic mutation will cause a small change in a population that might not be noticeable until the environment changes. When this happens, it's not species vs species. It's individuals with beneficial mutations vs the environment. The beneficial traits are more likely to be passed down and the others are more likely to go extinct with a drastic change. Sexual selection is a big part as well. There can be mating competitions within a species, and if the male is born with a feature that might be slightly more attractive to females, they will spread more of their seed than the other males, and their features will carry on. Peacocks are a prime example of this.

Comparing natural selection to the change in design of automobiles or the economy is flawed because those are man made creations. They are not biological organisms that experience genetic mutation and then get sorted out by environment changes. They do not mate or have offspring. Their design might change over time, however each individual has to be created new from scratch. Evolution is biological process, it's not even close to the same thing. Life for most creatures is a constant struggle for survival.

Deep sleep is just like death? I'm not so sure about that. In deep sleep your brain can simulate a reality, whereas with death, there is nothing. Your brain is dead so you don't dream.
edit on 23-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by simplyLOVE
 


Failed on the very second sentence, will go back and read the rest.

Promise not to respond again until I've read it all.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by simplyLOVE
 


Failed on the very second sentence, will go back and read the rest.

Promise not to respond again until I've read it all.


Agreed. I don't know which part you objected to, but I stopped reading at "Creature A replicates." Only asexually reproducing species replicate. The rest reproduce.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by simplyLOVE
 


Natural Selection is an inaccurately observed event. I say that because evolutionists assume its part of the process of evolution, just like they assume that adaptation is also part of evolution. The fact is if something would have evolved correctly, there wouldn't be the need to adapt. If something had the ability to adapt, it wouldn't need to evolve. At the same time evolution is not adaptation and adaptation is not evolution.

Evolution is not an observed event, it is assumed based on some small findings of speciation. The rest of the theory is not observed. Evolutionists also claim that evolution is not a creator, yet it supposedly is responsible for creating over a billion species. Regardless of the fact that it might be accidental or not backed by intention is not the point, anything that creates over a billion species is obviously a creator of some sort.

Because evolution has never been witnessed, documented and its not predictable or recreatable, and it appears to be made to replace the idea of a conventional creator, its obvious that it was simply a made up replacement to cover up the idea of religion

The problem is that religion has gotten a bad rap since forever but there is a very good reason for this. The bible is a historical document that tells a very big story of things that happened in the past. The category of this book falls into the “Supernatural” section. It's not fiction, not sci -fi, not fantasy or any other category that we are used to, it falls into its own category of supernatural. The reason why this is the only book in this category is because since the time of those events, we haven't written anything else in that category.

It's because of this that the bible is not testable to current scientific standards, and also why its impossible to just simply dismiss the events as not real. There is no way to put the events to any test without the supernatural element present.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by simplyLOVE
 


Failed on the very second sentence, will go back and read the rest.

Promise not to respond again until I've read it all.


Agreed. I don't know which part you objected to, but I stopped reading at "Creature A replicates." Only asexually reproducing species replicate. The rest reproduce.


For me, in the sentence "Creature A replicates so many times until a small change occurs because of adaptation to environment, requirement for getting food etc resulting in creature B. "it was the use of "because of adaptation"

It sort of reminds me of another poster on another thread that kept thinking that evolution was a cause of change rather than an outcome of a process of change.

Still, at least the OP stated that this was their understanding of how it worked and not an insistence that this was how it worked.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by simplyLOVE
 


It doesn't matter how you slice it, you can claim that its just happenstance but the fact is there is always intention somewhere along the line. Changes don't happen in random, there is purpose and intent behind everything, and that is science.

The theoy of evolution is nothing more than an observation of many different things and the outcome from them being affected. Evolution claims they are all random but how could they prove that when they haven't identified the mechanism behind it to begin with?

Evolution would be predictable if scientists knew all of the things making the changes, as was the case with CNV's and ADHD. Those changes are almost predictable based on the introduction of lead into ones genes. Now before knowing this, scientists would have argued that those changes are from evolution, but as you can now see, they are not. I venture to say that NONE of the changes are from evoution, there is purpose and intent behind each and every change and until its all mapped out, the idea of evoution will live on from ignorance.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I say that because evolutionists assume its part of the process of evolution, just like they assume that adaptation is also part of evolution.

Do you realize what the definition of evolution is? No assumptions necessary. Adaptation is part of evolution by definition.


The fact is if something would have evolved correctly, there wouldn't be the need to adapt.

Okay. So show me the evidence that indicates whether something evolves CORRECTLY. There is no correctly, there is the environment and that's what evolution follows.


If something had the ability to adapt, it wouldn't need to evolve.

But the definition of evolution INCLUDES adaptation.


At the same time evolution is not adaptation and adaptation is not evolution.

Wrong. See the above... note the actual definition of evolution.


Evolution is not an observed event, it is assumed based on some small findings of speciation.

Nope. Wrong again.


The rest of the theory is not observed.

So false I could write a song about it.


Evolutionists also claim that evolution is not a creator, yet it supposedly is responsible for creating over a billion species.

You don't understand what constitutes as a creator. Evolution didn't create anything. The species changed over time and there ya go.


Regardless of the fact that it might be accidental or not backed by intention is not the point, anything that creates over a billion species is obviously a creator of some sort.

Again, creation indicates that some existing intelligent entity actually CREATED something. Nothing was created, it changed slowly over time.


Because evolution has never been witnessed, documented and its not predictable or recreatable, and it appears to be made to replace the idea of a conventional creator, its obvious that it was simply a made up replacement to cover up the idea of religion

It actually has been witnessed, documented, and people use it actively to prediction virus evolution in modern medicine. It doesn't replace a creator unless you're a fundie.


The problem is that religion has gotten a bad rap since forever but there is a very good reason for this. The bible is a historical document that tells a very big story of things that happened in the past. The category of this book falls into the “Supernatural” section. It's not fiction, not sci -fi, not fantasy or any other category that we are used to, it falls into its own category of supernatural. The reason why this is the only book in this category is because since the time of those events, we haven't written anything else in that category.

It's gotten a bad rap why? Historical document, proof? Yeah, basically there's no evidence any of it ever happened. If it helps you sleep at night, cool, but it ain't evidence.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Do you realize what the definition of evolution is? No assumptions necessary. Adaptation is part of evolution by definition.
Evolution did make it into the definition of adaptation but just like the rest of the theory, there is no proof. There is no proof that adaptation is tied to evolution.




Okay. So show me the evidence that indicates whether something evolves CORRECTLY. There is no correctly, there is the environment and that's what evolution follows.
The only time adaptation is needed, is when evolution has failed. The only time adaptation is used, is when evolution has failed.




But the definition of evolution INCLUDES adaptation.
Please! Thats my point, evolution includes a lot of things, and not a single one can be verified.




Evolution is not an observed event, it is assumed based on some small findings of speciation.

Nope. Wrong again.
Please! No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.




So false I could write a song about it.
I don't care if you write a bible about it, there is still no proof.




You don't understand what constitutes as a creator. Evolution didn't create anything. The species changed over time and there ya go.
Please explain to me how something that is responsible for creating over a billion species is mistakenly NOT observed as being a creator.




Again, creation indicates that some existing intelligent entity actually CREATED something. Nothing was created, it changed slowly over time.
That would be false, I guess you better read the definition of creator again, even though I have posted it over a dozen times...


cre·a·tor/krēˈātər/Noun: 1.A person or thing that brings something into existence.
2.Used as a name for God.


creator

So as you can see, your WRONG, a creator can also be a thing, in this case your process of evolution.




It actually has been witnessed, documented, and people use it actively to prediction virus evolution in modern medicine. It doesn't replace a creator unless you're a fundie.
No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species. There is a big difference between finding some small changes in medicine and claiming that we share a common ancestor with apes.




It's gotten a bad rap why? Historical document, proof? Yeah, basically there's no evidence any of it ever happened. If it helps you sleep at night, cool, but it ain't evidence.
The bible is a book of genocide, I doubt seriously if it's going to help me sleep at night but I guess that might be different depending on others beliefs. There is lots of proof of many things that occured in the bible. Perhaps the best is the remains in our very own DNA. Our DNA is hacked up so bad from the genocide that one author actually believes we were an engineerd species. All of the proof you need is in our very own DNA.

We have over 4000 gross defects in our genes, Evolution couldn't possibly explain these defects when humans are the only species that have the percentage that we do.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Evolution did make it into the definition of adaptation but just like the rest of the theory, there is no proof. There is no proof that adaptation is tied to evolution.

The only time adaptation is needed, is when evolution has failed. The only time adaptation is used, is when evolution has failed.

Please! Thats my point, evolution includes a lot of things, and not a single one can be verified.


So you are now claiming that adaption does not exist, even though it's part of natural selection. Okay then.




Please! No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species.

Surely you remember the yeast bacteria and fruit fly experiment.



Please explain to me how something that is responsible for creating over a billion species is mistakenly NOT observed as being a creator.

That would be false, I guess you better read the definition of creator again, even though I have posted it over a dozen times...

cre·a·tor/krēˈātər/Noun: 1.A person or thing that brings something into existence.
2.Used as a name for God.


Humans and other modern creatures were not "brought into existence" by evolution. They were already here and changed slowly over time due to genetic mutations and natural selection. If you want to talk about creation you need to go back to the first cell to ever exist and see how that was brought into existence. Evolution is not POOF!!! A monkey morphs into a human in one generation. Don't be confused by the labels.



There is lots of proof of many things that occured in the bible. Perhaps the best is the remains in our very own DNA. Our DNA is hacked up so bad from the genocide that one author actually believes we were an engineerd species. All of the proof you need is in our very own DNA.

Urm.. I'm going to need a source on that "proof".


We have over 4000 gross defects in our genes, Evolution couldn't possibly explain these defects when humans are the only species that have the percentage that we do.
Actually evolution perfectly explains it. If evolution didn't exist, the defects wouldn't exist. How do you think they got there, if the DNA can't be changed?
edit on 4-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





So you are now claiming that adaption does not exist, even though it's part of natural selection. Okay then.
Adaptation is a natural part of our abilities, Evolution doesnt determin what our abilities will be. Evolution changes are on a genetic level.






Surely you remember the yeast bacteria and fruit fly experiment.
I sure do, and when they were done you still had yeast bacteria and fruit flys.




Humans and other modern creatures were not "brought into existence" by evolution. They were already here and changed slowly over time due to genetic mutations and natural selection. If you want to talk about creation you need to go back to the first cell to ever exist and see how that was brought into existence. Evolution is not POOF!!! A monkey morphs into a human in one generation. Don't be confused by the labels.
And you have to say that, as that is your excuse for not having proof.




Urm.. I'm going to need a source on that "proof".
The human genome is public information but if you wan't someone to explain it to you, here is a good one.

Human genetics




Actually evolution perfectly explains it. If evolution didn't exist, the defects wouldn't exist. How do you think they got there, if the DNA can't be changed?
Defects could be explained by evolution but the fact is that we have over 1000% our fair share of them and evolution doesn't explain that. This is a comparison to other life on this planet, why did humans get such a vast amount of defects?



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Uh....No.

So you have white moths living against the white bark of trees. If there is accidentally a black moth, an aberration, and it lives against the bark of a white tree, it gets eaten. So black moths don't do well in a forest of white-barked trees; white moths do. Natural selection. A genetic change, a cosmic ray turning the white gene to black? Epic fail, like most of them.

Now it's England in the 18th century. Coal-fired stoves emit a lot of pollution that falls on the white barked trees and turn them black with soot. Now the white moths stand out, and they get eaten, but the few black moths that are there survive. Soon thare are a lot more black moths than white moths. Again, natural selection. The soot represents a simple change in the environment. In this case, the genetic mutation for black turns into a positive survival factor.

No God required.
Wasn't the whole moth thing a fraud?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Hey everyone thanks very much for all your replies, i didnt expect this much attention to my thread


You have all done what i asked and helped to educate me further on this.


I would just like to make clear what my stance is and what I was trying to say with this thread:


I blieve in God, but I do not deny evolution is an observable process, I was just kind of, applying my hindu learnings to it a little and saying that i is not the be all and end all, it is more of an answer to HOW rather than to WHY.

And that to my logical mind, evolution does not disprove God, and does not need to either, and in fact justifies him (to me anyway) at all times and proves him further.

(and i know God is beyond the duality of he and she, but im not so its just easier to talk that way





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join