|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
The fact that for every successful design there has to be a good 100x more than are not successful.
Where do you get this idea? You are confused and it shows because you are still using the word "designed". Most offspring born of a parent which has reproduced in it's fitness landscape would be able to reproduce in their generation's fitness landscape. The changing environment and mutations are not that fast.
Quote:
If evolution is really going to create intricate and complex pieces of "machinery" completely RANDOMLY than it must be generating a shitload of random variations that are simply useless and down right weird.
Where do you get this idea too? It seems like you are extrapolating broad concepts off of a limited and off base understanding. That is, it looks like you are just making shit up.
For continued reproduction the DNA replication must have very high, but not perfect fidelity. It seems like you are operating under the notion that it has low fidelity.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
--------------------
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140429/ncomms4746/full/ncomms4746.html
"Maternal nutrition at conception modulates DNA methylation of human metastable epialleles"
Published earlier this week, I share because it is another example of how life experiences directly affects evolution (DNA) and that what one does in a lifetime through experience can be passed on to offspring.
-- an essential part of the forming theory and one that many (RGV) claimed does not happen-- This part of the theory is something I pragmatically came to understand and felt it was common knowledge within the biology field, and it is, but only the acknowledgement of mutations of DNA constantly being altered through life experiences, little else is attributed to this very important observation.
http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/abstract/S2211-1247%2814%2900264-2 "Fate of iPSCs Derived from Azoospermic and Fertile Men following Xenotransplantation to Murine Seminiferous Tubules"
Published earlier this week, the above gives hope for infertile men to have children by generating sperm precursors from their skin. How is this relevant? It is direct evidence of consciousness (awareness with intelligence) having a direct influence on evolution.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
Edited by hTx (05/05/14 09:48 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19945907 - 05/05/14 07:21 PM (9 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140429/ncomms4746/full/ncomms4746.html
"Maternal nutrition at conception modulates DNA methylation of human metastable epialleles"
Published earlier this week, I share because it is another example of how life experiences directly evolution (DNA) and that this can be passed on to offspring.
-- an essential part of the forming theory and one that many (RGV) claimed does not happen-- This part of the theory is something I pragmatically came to understand and felt it was common knowledge within the biology field, and it is, but only the acknowledgement of mutations of DNA constantly being altered through life experiences, little else is attributed to this very important observation.
http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/abstract/S2211-1247%2814%2900264-2 "Fate of iPSCs Derived from Azoospermic and Fertile Men following Xenotransplantation to Murine Seminiferous Tubules"
Published earlier this week, the above gives hope for infertile men to have children by generating sperm precursors from their skin. How is this relevant? It is direct evidence of consciousness (awareness with intelligence) having a direct influence on evolution.
what the scientists are studying has little to do with your wished for idea. they are finding that a seasonal diet which methyllates some epigenetic markers is associated with broods that have varying blood markers. a) the seasonal variation in diet is not consciousness b) the phenotypic variation follows a cycle that is stable -> not a mutation or indicator of evolution.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
what the scientists are studying has little to do with your wished for idea.
Well, that certainly is a shocker.
--------------------
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
what the scientists are studying has little to do with your wished for idea. they are finding that a seasonal diet which methyllates some epigenetic markers is associated with broods that have varying blood markers. a) the seasonal variation in diet is not consciousness b) the phenotypic variation follows a cycle that is stable -> not a mutation or indicator of evolution.
Your claim that epigenetics has nothing to do with evolution is a wild one, if not just plain wrong.
Perhaps because I attempt to write as simple as possible, this is the reason you cannot grasp what I am attempting to say.
a) Seasonal variation in diet, has much to do with consciousness as this is the medium for which people make the conscious decision to change or not change their diets. It is the medium for which any living thing does anything at all.
b) ..But still is proof that diet effects offspring..meaning conscious decisions in a persons lifetime affect future generations. (something you denied happening earlier in the thread, and now I have evidence.)
You ignored the second study which I presented as evidence, but made a b) to see if I had actually read what I had posted and to make it seem like you addressed the second study...almost clever.
But to further clarify my POV with regards to the second study, here ya go: Fifteen years ago, infertile men could not reproduce, even a year ago they had little hope. The above is evidence that through our collective consciousness we are coming up with ways in which the infertile may reproduce -- and reproduction has everything to do with evolution.
(oh by the way, I have barely scratched the surface of the evidence I have gathered in the past few months)
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
what the scientists are studying has little to do with your wished for idea.
Well, that certainly is a shocker. 

its pretty funny how you automatically accept a POV that is seemingly opposite the one you hold.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19946824 - 05/05/14 10:22 PM (9 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Your original premise was that consciousness is primary to evolution, but it seems like you're now arguing that consciousness plays some role in evolution.
Edited by White Beard (05/05/14 10:23 PM)
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19946862 - 05/05/14 10:30 PM (9 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: consciousness as this is the medium for which people make the conscious decision to change or not change their diets. It is the medium for which any living thing does anything at all.
There are a lot of processes occurring in my body that I have no direct concious control over. What about people who are unconscious, such as in a coma? Their body keeps running without the oversight of consciousness.
Edited by White Beard (05/05/14 10:31 PM)
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said: Your original premise was that consciousness is primary to evolution, but it seems like you're arguing that consciousness plays some role in evolution, which is very different.
If someone is making a conscious decision about their diet with or without the foreknowledge that it will affect future generations, the medium that they use to have a decision making process, is consciousness.
So what came first, the decision of what to eat, or the eating?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said:
Quote:
hTx said: consciousness as this is the medium for which people make the conscious decision to change or not change their diets. It is the medium for which any living thing does anything at all.
There are a lot of processes occurring in my body that I have no direct concious control over. What about people who are unconscious, such as in a coma? Their body keeps running without the oversight of consciousness.
unconscious, subconscious, and conscious are all part of one consciousness.
If someone is unconscious (asleep, coma) they are still under the umbrella of consciousness.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19946919 - 05/05/14 10:42 PM (9 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Eating. The decision of what to eat came later once a large enough brain was developed that can analyze things such as diet, and that required eating to get there in the first place.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19946955 - 05/05/14 10:50 PM (9 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said:
Quote:
White Beard said:
Quote:
hTx said: consciousness as this is the medium for which people make the conscious decision to change or not change their diets. It is the medium for which any living thing does anything at all.
There are a lot of processes occurring in my body that I have no direct concious control over. What about people who are unconscious, such as in a coma? Their body keeps running without the oversight of consciousness.
unconscious, subconscious, and conscious are all part of one consciousness.
If someone is unconscious (asleep, coma) they are still under the umbrella of consciousness.
un is a negative. It literally means not conscious. I have no idea what the 'umbrella of consciousness' is either.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19946998 - 05/05/14 11:00 PM (9 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
its pretty funny how you automatically accept a POV that is seemingly opposite the one you hold.
What is funny is how you repeatedly keep demonstrating your lack of knowledge in certain areas and then come right back with yet more nonsense the next day having learned nothing.
--------------------
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
not-conscious is not the same as not consciousness. Consciousness is what is when something is alive, unconscious or not...
Ever dream? ever lucid dream?
You seem to be confused in thinking that the conscious you is your entire consciousness.
Unconsciousness is associated with life, and therefore consciousness.
Something dead is the only thing not consciousness, the animator of life has left the building.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
its pretty funny how you automatically accept a POV that is seemingly opposite the one you hold.
What is funny is how you repeatedly keep demonstrating your lack of knowledge in certain areas and then come right back with yet more nonsense the next day having learned nothing.
what is funny is you repeatedly keep demonstrating your lack of knowledge in certain areas and then come right back with yet more nonsense the next day having learned nothing. You make baseless claims that I lack knowledge and that I have learned nothing, and use that as your argument.
Example: You have yet to make one actual logical counter-argument this entire thread. It has been nothing but ad hominem and strawmans for months.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said: Eating. The decision of what to eat came later once a large enough brain was developed that can analyze things such as diet, and that required eating to get there in the first place.
Evolution of consciousness.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19947213 - 05/05/14 11:34 PM (9 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
If you're going to define consciousness as the same as being alive then you're attempting to prove your premise through a fallacy. I.e. You're defining consciousness so that it has to be primary to evolution. I don't accept your definition. 'Consciousness' is awareness of self and surroundings. You can't just equate it to 'alive'. Different words, different meanings.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] 1
#19947252 - 05/05/14 11:40 PM (9 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
not-conscious is not the same as not consciousness
Wow. An adjective is not the same as a noun? Boy, have you added to my body of knowledge once again. 
Quote:
Unconsciousness is associated with life, and therefore consciousness.

I am still waiting for a post of yours that makes a lick of sense. Here, let me try an hTxism: Death is associated with life, therefore dead people are alive. How did I do?
--------------------
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said: If you're going to define consciousness as the same as being alive then you're attempting to prove your premise through a fallacy. I.e. You're defining consciousness so that it has to be primary to evolution. I don't accept your definition. 'Consciousness' is awareness of self and surroundings. You can't just equate it to 'alive'. Different words, different meanings.
Strawman.
I never do such a thing, I state merely that everything alive must have consciousness or it wouldn't be considered alive.
Common sense, really.
Alive and Consciousness are entangled, but not the same. Something that was living that is now dead does not exhibit consciousness, at all. However, consciousness may not need something alive to exist, however there is little proof of this statement hence the 'may'.
You are the one to equate alive with consciousness, not I.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
|