• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Evolution Conscious (Some amazing points about evolution)

Kirran

Premium Member
And of course, I'm lucky to be me. Imagine if I was someone else, boy would I be confused... LOL!!!

Haha, I like this one. It's like the actually very elegant answer to 'Why are we here?' - 'Why, where else would we be?'
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Good lord that's a good analogy!

Hats off to you man, for real.
Thank you. Finally someone who got it! :D

I've been mentioning this analogy for years, but no one really ever got it. So, no, thank you for reading it and understanding it!
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Yeah.... but that is a game, and not that complicated. I understand what you're saying. But you are asking it to make a human being by chance and picking the best all the time. Now, if you are going to tell me the pack is stacked, then count me in ;)

There's a lot more information encoded in DNA than on dice. And so much more time has gone by. Like, so much time.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Yeah.... but that is a game, and not that complicated. I understand what you're saying. But you are asking it to make a human being by chance and picking the best all the time. Now, if you are going to tell me the pack is stacked, then count me in ;)
We're not the best picking all the time. There are currently I think 10 different human species that didn't make it. Homo sapiens is the lucky one. Homo neanderthalis was not.

The pack is stacked because of the multitude of individuals that went through life in the past. It's like a network of events. Also, it's not a single line that can be drawn for all the mutations. Many (or most) mutations happened in different lines of families that later recombined their genes by jumping over the fence to the neighbor.

Say parents A1 and A2 have a gene X, and parents B1 and B2 have a gene Y. Now one child from each family marry and have kids. There's a good chance the grandchildren will have both gene X and gene Y. The mutation happened parallel, not in sequence. It takes half the time with four individual than it would take for two.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
There's a lot more information encoded in DNA than on dice. And so much more time has gone by. Like, so much time.
But time does not equate with balance and form, unless the whole universe is set up that way, which it appears to be...for, from its first unpacking out of its box in the big bang, it seems to be self assembling. Kinda strange I think ;)
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
But I still see NO REASON as to WHY they would not eat their own offspring. It is a food source. And it is free. And taking it out of the equation means that you have more food as they are not eating what the ADULT would eat. Do you see my problem here?
I honestly don't. Unless you feel that we were at one point in time nothing but rabid monsters that ate whatever was in front of us and suddenly stopped eating our own babies no.

The process most likely began with the idea that we don't eat other species like ourselves. This would allow us to live together. One such instance is the idea that we develop instincts on what is food and what isn't foot. The same facilities that allow us to understand what food is. A cow for example eats grass. A cow would not eat its own baby. Only carnivores would even consider to eat their own babies. The development of a carnivore was out of an herbivore that already understood not to eat its own child. Now as stated before in extreme circumstances there are carnivores that do eat their own children. However they most likely developed with a high preference to keep the children alive. This is of course talking from mammal perspectives. Reptiles and fish don't necessarily care for young. Birds often do and mammals always do. Its one of the traits of mammals and most likely a key developmental feature that allowed us to rear young more successfully.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
But time does not equate with balance and form, unless the whole universe is set up that way, which it appears to be...for, from its first unpacking out of its box in the big bang, it seems to be self assembling. Kinda strange I think ;)

It seems that way, because we're in it. But actually entropy is increasing. What we perceive as order can be described as the difference between the observed entropy and the maximum entropy possible.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
But time does not equate with balance and form, unless the whole universe is set up that way, which it appears to be...for, from its first unpacking out of its box in the big bang, it seems to be self assembling. Kinda strange I think ;)
It could be. Perhaps life is a force, like a magnetic field, that's pulling the universe towards life and complexity. A field of life spanning both time and space. The future is pulling us there. But I wouldn't say this in public. People would think I'm just crazy. :D
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I honestly don't. Unless you feel that we were at one point in time nothing but rabid monsters that ate whatever was in front of us and suddenly stopped eating our own babies no.

The process most likely began with the idea that we don't eat other species like ourselves. This would allow us to live together. One such instance is the idea that we develop instincts on what is food and what isn't foot. The same facilities that allow us to understand what food is. A cow for example eats grass. A cow would not eat its own baby. Only carnivores would even consider to eat their own babies. The development of a carnivore was out of an herbivore that already understood not to eat its own child. Now as stated before in extreme circumstances there are carnivores that do eat their own children. However they most likely developed with a high preference to keep the children alive. This is of course talking from mammal perspectives. Reptiles and fish don't necessarily care for young. Birds often do and mammals always do. Its one of the traits of mammals and most likely a key developmental feature that allowed us to rear young more successfully.
Okay that is a good answer I think. But from the perspective of fish, which you mentioned, how does that work? Surely they are not too bright. So why not eat what is in front of you? And considering we come from the sea then how did we manage to get past that point?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
If you ascribe to the multiverse theory (I have no opinions myself) then it's self-selecting, as only those universes complex enough for self-aware life to occur could be contemplated and observed.

Even if you don't ascribe the theory, then still it can be said that if we weren't in a universe complex enough for complex life to develop, then we wouldn't be able to ponder at why it was so complex, or not so complex.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Okay that is a good answer I think. But from the perspective of fish, which you mentioned, how does that work? Surely they are not too bright. So why not eat what is in front of you? And considering we come from the sea then how did we manage to get past that point?

giphy.gif
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
It could be. Perhaps life is a force, like a magnetic field, that's pulling the universe towards life and complexity. A field of life spanning both time and space. The future is pulling us there. But I wouldn't say this in public. People would think I'm just crazy. :D
You mean they don't already? Hey come on, I can't stand here all by myself you know ;)
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
then still it can be said that if we weren't in a universe complex enough for complex life to develop, then we wouldn't be able to ponder at why it was so complex, or not so complex.
I never know why people give that answer. It doesn't seem to have a point.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Okay, the old man is tired, and his eyes can take no more (nor his eyebrows)... hope to annoy you all some more tomorrow... ta :)
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I never know why people give that answer. It doesn't seem to have a point.

I think it makes quite a bit of sense to me.

At the end of the day, things are as they are, and that's it (Advaita, Daoism).

But why have we not ate each other by then? Fish eat fish? no?

Well, there are fish which survive today, in oceans and aquariums and other bodies of water.

It's like saying how are there animals, when animals eat animals?

Goodnight.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Okay that is a good answer I think. But from the perspective of fish, which you mentioned, how does that work? Surely they are not too bright. So why not eat what is in front of you? And considering we come from the sea then how did we manage to get past that point?
The intellect or lack thereof of fish would make not determination on what their instincts would say. The development of those instincts, again, would be very similar to anything that we have developed on land. The first animals were not carnivores (though they did develop quickly afterwards). Those animals would have had to develop some semblance of an idea of what they could consume and what they could not. Also what would have developed would be the idea of communities of the same animal. Those communities of animals must have developed an inhibitor somewhere for their behaviors that would dominate their interactions with each other.

Evolution of the way they view their young, or specifically in the case of fish, eggs, would have been along the same lines. They would have instinctively attempted to protect the eggs as it may have been as an extension of themselves or simply pure instinct developed out of the necessity to reproduce. Once they were born then it is reasonable to assume they would have been viewed as part of the community and therefor "not food". Many animals such as fish can lay eggs and then abandon those eggs which would then hatch and only a very very very few may survive.
 
Top