Hi there,
So I am pretty sure I would get burned, by Evolutionists, if I brought this up: but I really want to know an answer! If there are adaptations, in a given species and those adaptations don't turn out to be critical, but instead become throwbacks to past generations of the same species and those throwbacks develop "newer" adaptations, in the same species, but then those adaptations don't turn out to be critical, but instead become even more throwbacks - to the same past generations: what is happening to Evolution? Is there no sufficient selection pressure, to have them change significantly (that is, "critically" or more)?
What I 'm trying to say, is that experience on its own should amount to some kind of tangible relationship, with Evolution. Experience keeps instinct in focus, plumbs the depths of relevance, and secures the optimum (to advance with, moving forward). If Evolution can not do anything with "experience" then there is surely something "wrong" with the theory? It is not addressing something that would commit masses of survivability to any given species? The only creation that does not need to make something of experience is a germ and even then most of the time they try to (make something of experience, let the reader note).
This is like the clockwork of Evolution right? That some sort of experience, guides what will be adapted and what not, from generation to generation? For things "Created" this instinct is preemptive - you are expected to go with the experience of the herd -; for things "Evolved" this instinct is recollective - you are expected to hunt first and ask why later. A working ecology takes both of these differences into account and more. I am not suggesting that Evolution has failed, in not accounting as the ecology does, just that some sort of "fraction" of experience should be included in the attempt to understand which selection pressures are beneficial.
The function, if it is anything, is something like the evolution of mitochondria, in keeping with the experience of the DNA upheld by the individuals of the species. I admit this is where my knowledge of Evolution is tested - I don't know what the soul does with the difference between DNA and mitochondria; I think it's basically a choice that we experience as a relevance, from moment to moment, between what happens and what we would prefer to happen. It would help to have the words of Jesus here! In any case, knowing there is a choice of Evolutions is helpful - if not least, that it helps us maintain our focus on God (what He would have us do, and why). I don't know, I guess I am more ignorant than I thought I would be. If you have suggestions, please offer them!
I suppose preliminarily, the point is to make our experience count for more - something it does in spades, as Created by God, but which needs to be reapproached for Evolution's sake (as it is here?). I don't mean to make work for Evolution, just so, but there are clearly finishing touches that still need to be addressed.
Thanks for watching.
So I am pretty sure I would get burned, by Evolutionists, if I brought this up: but I really want to know an answer! If there are adaptations, in a given species and those adaptations don't turn out to be critical, but instead become throwbacks to past generations of the same species and those throwbacks develop "newer" adaptations, in the same species, but then those adaptations don't turn out to be critical, but instead become even more throwbacks - to the same past generations: what is happening to Evolution? Is there no sufficient selection pressure, to have them change significantly (that is, "critically" or more)?
What I 'm trying to say, is that experience on its own should amount to some kind of tangible relationship, with Evolution. Experience keeps instinct in focus, plumbs the depths of relevance, and secures the optimum (to advance with, moving forward). If Evolution can not do anything with "experience" then there is surely something "wrong" with the theory? It is not addressing something that would commit masses of survivability to any given species? The only creation that does not need to make something of experience is a germ and even then most of the time they try to (make something of experience, let the reader note).
This is like the clockwork of Evolution right? That some sort of experience, guides what will be adapted and what not, from generation to generation? For things "Created" this instinct is preemptive - you are expected to go with the experience of the herd -; for things "Evolved" this instinct is recollective - you are expected to hunt first and ask why later. A working ecology takes both of these differences into account and more. I am not suggesting that Evolution has failed, in not accounting as the ecology does, just that some sort of "fraction" of experience should be included in the attempt to understand which selection pressures are beneficial.
The function, if it is anything, is something like the evolution of mitochondria, in keeping with the experience of the DNA upheld by the individuals of the species. I admit this is where my knowledge of Evolution is tested - I don't know what the soul does with the difference between DNA and mitochondria; I think it's basically a choice that we experience as a relevance, from moment to moment, between what happens and what we would prefer to happen. It would help to have the words of Jesus here! In any case, knowing there is a choice of Evolutions is helpful - if not least, that it helps us maintain our focus on God (what He would have us do, and why). I don't know, I guess I am more ignorant than I thought I would be. If you have suggestions, please offer them!
I suppose preliminarily, the point is to make our experience count for more - something it does in spades, as Created by God, but which needs to be reapproached for Evolution's sake (as it is here?). I don't mean to make work for Evolution, just so, but there are clearly finishing touches that still need to be addressed.
Thanks for watching.
