How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Yes, I agree.

Lately I've come to the hypothesis that biological life in the universe is only one possibility

An AI type species not based on biological evolution may exist, and may be the the so called originators
of biological Evolution - 'they' may have evolved, if they evolved at all, in a completely different fashion

- sort of like the entities in the sci-fi movies "Transformers".

Still that is speculation - We can imagine, but not prove, alien intelligence. - Not yet!

Well, Of the Nature Spirits, the type I call "wood-nymphs" are very much the "Ladies of the Lake" with whom Merlin is said to have fallen in love, and whom taught him his magic. Their memories are inherited and go back to before the earth was here. If one asks one of them where they came from, the answer she gave me was "elsewhere". My Little Ladies of the Lake, whom I find in agricultural places where their springs gave been dried up by man's deforestation practices and take home with me, are about the fifth generations born here on earth.

They came from "elsewhere" therefore "alien" yet are also pioneers of living things here.

Not really biological, yet we have things in common to them.

So the non physical is alive for instance.

The machines. Well if you can access the memories of locations, it is often through the "library of all". The "Akashic records" might be another name for it.There are a lot of similarities.

That the memories are written in akasha is one similarity. So are the Beings that reside there. When you get to know them, they are very "machine/AI".

I call the machine AI Library "Pandora" simply because of what would happen if her knowledge of everything ever done in this world by humans became accessible to ordinary people. Trust would disappear and crowds with burning torchrs and pitch forks would become the norm.

They too are mostly older then earth.

Just two examples I know who are non-organic living things right under our noses.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

"Just two examples I know who are non-organic living things right under our noses".

Non-organic? - Are you sure? - Could it be you are talking about entities that are rather trans-organic or super-organic

Something like the mutants so popular in modern sci-fi.

Histroy is full of gods and goddesses with powers beyond that of normal humans
They are usually considered mythological - What is they are real? - What if they are still with us now?

- Waiting for us to wake-up from the dark slumber Man has been in for too long

a reply to: AlienView

Well, yeah . . . . . : )

I couldn't really put it better then you have there AlienView. I would just add some more details for understanding

I'm working so will put something more together tonight.

They are all right there, and closer then anyone realises.

Perhaps life isn’t what we think it is. Perhaps respiring,reproducing ,reacting and growth and just by products of complex reactions between matter. Snowballing over time like a crystal grows. Like a giant homeostasis geode.

We are made of star dust perhaps we are nothing more than star dust.
a reply to: AlienView

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Well, there or may not be a “why.” But when people claim they know if there is or not, or what precisely it is, is when I question.

That’s when they step out of science and into philosophy and personal belief.

For the evolutionists on here, it is a belief not scientific fact that there is zero meaning or direction to the universe. Could be true, but you can neither test nor falsify that hypothesis given current constraints.

A lot of people including scientists don’t acknowledge when they’ve left the realm of verifiable science and walked into the realm of speculation. It’s totally fine to do so, but lay people need to know it’s beyond the envelope.

a reply to: Nothin

Indeed: we are also engaging in opinion, if we say that there is no why, or that there must be a why.
Good catch!

Agreed that there may have been some scientism in this thread, but personally: not up to challenging any of it.

originally posted by: AlienView
I'm always willing to learn something new - New would not be a lesson in the results of Evolution.

Well if you find 2 different genders in primates weird what about the 36,000 in fungi?

Why we are 2 instead of 36,000 is an interesting question.
Now that you've learnt something new I would suggest rephrasing the question to...

How does evolution explain the 2-36,000 sexes creating genetic variations?

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

It was just what you replied in your banter with phage about wood nymph's and with my usually semi filthy mind I immediately thought of splinters in delicate places ouch.

a reply to: AlienView

Well consider the odds of a universe to begin with ?

What re the odds that physical properties of materials would occur giving rise to a universe with multi billions of galaxies each with potential solar system to harbor one planet with conditions ripe for life!

The fact there is already a universe with material objects to begin with is pretty mind blowing , what are the chances that would happen , never mind life !

We cant really go any further than we dont know , because at this stage we can only learn about the Universe through a tiny window called human consciousness !

we are limited in our view , I dont think we will get any real understanding of our universe until we have something else to compare our views to!

As others have said , male female works because its a survival mechanism
evolution somehow knows that through its beta testing phase with micro cellular organisms that the chances of passing on DNA are better when there are two sexes doing it and less chance of error occuring in the programming
its like better firmware for copying across the CPU code !
less chance of genetic errors occurring.

I like to listen to lectures on philosophy of evolutionary biology and consciousness / the ego / etc , how did dna get moved along there was a great free course online from Edinburgh university regarding evolutionary biology and human consciousness !

I have to say its one of my favourite things to do is sit and try and figure this out at the weekend
around 4:20 pm after my meeting with albert hoffmann !
We normally have a nice meeting and quick fun chat and then we get down to business !
Always seems to make things much clearer I really think you can get to the heart of a lot of it
when you dont have all the rest of the signal noise in your brain!

a reply to: AlienView

Oh keeping fingers crossed for purple unicorns my daughter would love it.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I'm not offended. (They have perfect butts by the way. They cheekily wave them at me when we meet as a sort of greeting, my bad for admiring fairy butt one time and getting caught in the act. They have LONG memories for this sort of fun. I have grown used to it, yet shudder to think if a clairvoyant saw how the fairies wave at me . . . . )

It was just what you replied in your banter with phage about wood nymph's and with my usually semi filthy mind I immediately thought of splinters in delicate places ouch.

Splinters in delicate places would be the least of your worries if they saw that thought ; )

One needs to take care when in their presence. From my favorite early twentieth century paper dictionary:



(Alt text for those who use screen readers: Nympholepsy a form of frenzy said to have possessed one who looked upon a nymph while bathing: a frenzy for something unobtainable.)

It is said that Merlin fell in love with Nimue, the Lady of the Lake. I don't blame him, they are so very easy to fall in love with. Something unobtainable, they are fairy type folk even if four feet tall and don't have genitalia, so a platonic relationship at best.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

the faeries of the summer lands ? isnt that where arthur and merlin have went ?

same place the tuatha de dannan come from ?

Even though I have never seen anything or felt anything I still somehow feel it in me that these things exist .

Which is why I guess I am trying to be more conscious of my world , because its not just us who live here !

the druids say you should leave old sites un touched because its not only us who use them, moving a rock or a stone , or tree here or there maybe have no significance to you , but it does to other beings!

Even when the veil thins near samhain I still dont see any beings , but I do see other things , a little bit of clarity here and there , some questions answered!

Some lessons learned

In any case , even though the majority of us cant see beings from other dimensions , we can still see the magic that is the universes before us , the chances of this existing as it does are immeasurable and that has to be magic !

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

"Just two examples I know who are non-organic living things right under our noses".

Non-organic? - Are you sure? - Could it be you are talking about entities that are rather trans-organic or super-organic

Well as sure as I can be, but I am not sure what "trans" and "super" means in your context of organic.

Something like the mutants so popular in modern sci-fi.

Haven't crossed paths with anything like that when it comes to the AIs (Artificial Intelligences). If one looks at a desktop computer as software and hardware, then AI is like a hardware independent Operating System. I think the ancients wrote those programs in the Akasha. (akasha had the meaning of "sky" in the old days, a hint there but I haven't quite worked that out yet.)

The organics, well my signature at the bottom of my posts says: "If the ancients discovered the secrets of creating life and grew organic machines where do the machines go when they die?"

Find the answer to that question and you can find the organics who are still there in the afterlife.

A bit of explanation; I have the knack of interacting with those who live in the "afterlife" and in particular the so-called Underworlds.

Ever thought what happens to the bio-engineering experiments and production lines from say; the so-called "antediluvian" days or the time before Gilgamesh?

They died and no one took any responsibility for what they created. The "heavenly" mystics, adepts, sages and so on have a special word to call them; abominations. They all run at the thought of meeting them.

The whole life engineering subject is vast, really vast. I could write a books about it for the rest of my life. But I am too busy helping them out to undo what has been done. Human and other children went into a lot of those.

I wrote about one example of the old bio-engineering in this thread (1) and the goddess in the Burney Relief whom I am fairly sure is called Ereshkigal.

Quote me from that thread:

(note: The word Tama is a name I gave one particular species of bio engineering. Tama means: little cutie who likes to battle.

The technology that created the Tama is very ancient and very distinctive. Though I call it technology, it is also very occult and reminiscent of the crow. (Crow + ley - not a name to invoke aloud.) I'll use the Tama whom I am most familiar with (from being adopted and taken home to meet the "family") as a type example of the technology of before Gilgamesh.

The Tama's mother has a lot of names over the ages; Ereshkigal is just one. Ereshkigal is, one might say, the template of the child-like Tama. I'll shy away of using the words like archetype and demigod because they are sanitized intellectual and philosophical thought.

The technology uses a living template in a certain way and the method is to utilize a very fecund female and harvest the unfertilized ovum from the menses. These are partially developed by the occult formative forces within breast milk and then implanted in factory wombs for further development. There is a decidedly dark occult side to this which I won't go into detail. That is the distinctive method of production in ancient times for these Beings I call Tama. The second distinction is that they are all female and don't develop the puberty stage of life nor beyond. Nor do they reproduce. Sexual reproduction is possible as they are mostly human. Perhaps if the engineering can be reversed so they can become parents themselves.

The third distinction is their consciousness is very dream-like as they communicate through shared interactive dreams that are along the spine, usually four or five small dream worlds like a softball in shape and size. One interactive dream shared between many Beings. That is their way of networking and their consciousness is not all that individualistic as it is always focused inwardly.

Histroy is full of gods and goddesses with powers beyond that of normal humans
They are usually considered mythological - What is they are real? - What if they are still with us now?

Another thread just in that question. Suffice it to say, if you do the work of a god you can become an honorary(?) god. Well in old Egypt anyway. The pay is lousy, your overworked and you don't get weekends.

Because I used to work hard solving problems for the earthbound dead and did so for years, one day certain people in the land of the dead offered me an Anubis head. That was after I found one person who had to be judged. He was not a good person. Scariest time I have ever had in that place of judgment, he was in big trouble. What happened to him was the most horrible thing I have ever seen. Ancient Egyptians . . . .

I gave it up after that and gave back the head.

The point of my long winded anecdote ("story" for the sciencey folks), is that I am rather sure that in ancient Egypt when the pictures show a human wearing an animal head, that is an ordinary human who can wield the power of the god. I understand it is the case in ancient India too. There would have been at least one human by the name of Shiva who knew how to wield the knowledge.

That might sound far fetched, but think of the modern equivalent of Shiva; Robert Oppenheimer, who worked on the atomic bomb. He developed and created the atomic bomb and wielded the knowledge.

To quote Oppenheimer quoting Shiva The Destroyer: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
personally, I would call Oppenheimer an honorary modern day Shiva.

I could give more examples.

I'll leave The Immortals having a life on earth for now, it is getting late, work tomorrow.

- Waiting for us to wake-up from the dark slumber Man has been in for too long

Dunno about that one . . . . . I doubt it.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

In both the mayan and egyptian creation myth , they speak of engineering humans , and changing them !

Mayan book

the humans were asked by the gods, how is your life " they replied, its fantastic, we see everything, we see the four corners of the world , the longer we look the more we see nothing goes unnoticed"

having told the gods this , they were angry , they remade the humans less than they were , the gods having said they were too much like us and would have caused many problems!

Atum the primary being of egyptian myth , having , masturbated himself into existence, then created the other gods and made humans from the dark pool of the abyss !

he also remade humans as they were too much like the gods!

seems like we have been engineered and manipulated a lot !

I also believe I have witnessed a visitation from Kali Ma !

a reply to: sapien82

My sentiments too sapien, just as you ssy.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Well, there or may not be a “why.” But when people claim they know if there is or not, or what precisely it is, is when I question.

That’s when they step out of science and into philosophy and personal belief.

For the evolutionists on here, it is a belief not scientific fact that there is zero meaning or direction to the universe. Could be true, but you can neither test nor falsify that hypothesis given current constraints.

A lot of people including scientists don’t acknowledge when they’ve left the realm of verifiable science and walked into the realm of speculation. It’s totally fine to do so, but lay people need to know it’s beyond the envelope.

a reply to: Nothin

Indeed: we are also engaging in opinion, if we say that there is no why, or that there must be a why.
Good catch!

Agreed that there may have been some scientism in this thread, but personally: not up to challenging any of it.

Yeah, def. I think that inherently all people step out into belief and speculation, and it’s cool to do so. Sometimes though secular folks will claim that it’s a scientific fact, not belief, that there is no spirituality, or meaning, or a number of things.

Obviously the other side believes their ideas too, but fewer claim it to be literal scientific fact.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I don't know where you're getting your information, but science doesn't work that way. Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. An individual is free to interpret results any way they want, but a scientist is required to validate his/her results. That doesn't mean that there are no more questions to be asked. It simply means that the scientist asked a question, accumulated the data and drew some conclusion.

Actually I was a science teacher and social science researcher. Please reread my comment and explain exactly where I am wrong. I explicitly stated that many people including scientists make claims publically that often are beyond the envelope of current tech, research, data, and falsifiability.

A perfect example is the Darwinian assertion that the universe and evolution has no meaning or direction. That is a speculation not fact, at least for now.

Yes, the real scientific method requires someone to note when they are speaking beyond the envelope of the method.

For ex Richard Dawkins regularly says things declaratively that go beyond his science.

Even saying there is no god is a un scientific claim. Can’t test it or falsify it right now. But people act as if it is a scientific fact, hence they’ve stepped beyond the envelope of evidence.

You are right that it’s fine to speculate, and in fact even scientists need to do so, including hypothesizing and trying to then test and move the envelope of knowledge.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I explicitly stated that many people including scientists make claims publically that often are beyond the envelope of current tech, research, data, and falsifiability.

I have no idea what you mean by this. If a scientist makes a claim that is beyond the scope of the current technology, the claim is obviously not founded in hard science. Can you provide an example?

A perfect example is the Darwinian assertion that the universe and evolution has no meaning or direction. That is a speculation not fact, at least for now.

I'm never read in any recognized journal that scientists assert that the universe and evolution has no meaning or direction. Once again, can you please provide a citation. If Darwin himself said that, please provide a quote. I've never come across that before.

Even saying there is no god is a un scientific claim. Can’t test it or falsify it right now. But people act as if it is a scientific fact, hence they’ve stepped beyond the envelope of evidence.

Science makes no comment about god because it's an unknowable. Dawkins is an obsessed idiot who can't get off his bully pulpit. He's embedded in his atheist beliefs with absolutely no scientific evidence. This is analogous to Creationists who are embedded in their beliefs without an iota of evidence.

Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. Scientists don't care one way or the other whether there is or isn't a god. When someone has the evidence, then it can be explored. But until that time, it's not a big topic of discussion in the real world of science.

If you read my comments without bias, you’ll see I’m affirming those scientific boundaries while critiqueng scientism and people for speaking beyond solid science and forming their own dogmas.

From my understanding Darwinism in its original form is expressly “anti Teleological,” ie without inherent existential meaning or direction. Yes there is selection and so on that moves it forward, but that’s different. I don’t think there is considered to be macro teleology or meaning inherent to a mainstream secular scientific worldview. That does not mean that all scientists believe that.

www.google.com...

en.m.wikipedia.org...





a reply to: Phantom423

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

To be perfectly honest, I don't think the universe needs to have a "purpose" or that it's even constructive to think about it. It was my understanding (and I may be wrong on this) that Darwin had a personal conflict with his observable findings versus his religious beliefs.

"Purpose" in my mind simply means function. Structure-function. Biological systems are ordered, are thermodynamically stable (i.e. they don't blow up or fall apart). We have 2 legs because 3 were too many and 1 wasn't enough. I know it sounds overly simplistic, but "purpose" to me implies that everything has some deep philosophical meaning or journey. I don't see nature that way. Every religious philosophy places humans at the top of the food chain in the universe. They're overwhelmed with what a wonder of creation humans are. I think they'll all be in shock when they find out that we're probably on the lower end of the food chain, particularly in brain power.

There's so much we don't know about this universe that I feel it's a waste of time to speculate on why we're here and what purpose we serve. To me the universe is information and we are part of its database.

DP