Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

God, a posterior I

Expand Messages
  • Pogo Stick
    I have been wondering, recently, about the whole Darwinian angle. The idea that smarter is better may be a concept held by those smarter; the suspected
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I have been wondering, recently, about the whole Darwinian angle. The
      idea that smarter is better may be a concept held by those smarter;
      the suspected evolution toward the increasingly 'better' brood
      brought by evolution may be suspect as well. The whole of darwinian
      theory seems to be looking back and putting an observation into a
      neat package like a jell pill, which too many are swallowing whole
      and hard. I'll not get in line readily for the god pill and
      creationism either -- but wonder if either are not just as
      probable...and that perhaps other options which have not been
      considered are inded more likely.

      What is to say that natural selection produces something better,
      first if it is impossible to define better, and second if natural
      selection chooses to select something simply more efficient or more
      adaptible. I have suspicion that evolution might occur, but whether
      in increased or decreased capacity or as a fountain of better things
      to come, I have doubt. There is, for example, the likelihood that
      large dinasaurs came from a time when there was very little changing
      for a long period here on earth and so created themselves as large
      inadaptable beings. Once faced with challenge, they were ruined.
      While people seem to have an adaptability, and yet lack monsterous
      size, perhaps there is a lot to adapt to -- but who's to say if
      greater intelligence leads to better things, or to dissolution and
      insanity?

      The rose-colored glasses of le 'Duard have already dismissed the pogo-
      notion as incongruous with everything he was learnt in school. But as
      communication, greed and avarice over come many like a poison of
      jealous-cyanide gas released below them in their chair, can one say
      for certain that the 'new' world is better than the old one or that
      the direction is a path toward or away from god?

      It is wishful thinking that one knows something is for the best.
      Wishful as well that something will have a happy ending. Turn of fate
      or civilization might be good or bad depending on your perspective.

      And perhaps the superior beings have already been here, and left.

      Naked Flay
      -------------------------------
    • Bill Harris
      Pogo Stick, The Darwinian thing is undergoing a big revamping. It is less grand theory and more molecular biology. The nut fringe has little to say on that
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Pogo Stick, The Darwinian thing is undergoing a big revamping. It is less grand theory and more molecular biology. The nut fringe has little to say on that level because they have no idea what it is all about. It is about the continuing life of a super molecule and it`s changes. We organisms are like ships that carry it about the ocean of amino acids. It transfers to a new ship and the old one sinks. As cargo the molecule slightly changes the ships it rides on. It makes them more seaworthy for the particular voyage the ship is on. Weather the seas are high or calm, weather the winds are gale or balmy are far beyond the ability of the ship to control.
        Since the ship floats on the sea it changes the sea ever so slightly. Billons of ships cause more appreciable change, and from the oceans perspective those changes may not be beneficial. The ships see things from their survival perspective while the ocean of amino acids answers to many masters.
        Jimmy Darwin observed the changes organisms undergo. Now we unlock the mechanisms behind these changes. They are complex, unexciting mechanisms that arouse biochemists rather than creationists. Actually it may be a boon to the faith based since their numbers will never comprehend the complexity of genetic change. They would have to take a genetic model on faith just as they do a creationist fairytale.
        As to the utility of thought, I think we run into a similar problem. Ignorance is bliss until you affront a problem that must be solved. The upcoming energy dilemma could be an example. Will we shiver in stupidity when the oil runs out or think up an alternative. The Neanderthals evolved to exist in the cold, it would only take us 100,000 years to retrace their evolution. Then we could squat and grunt in perfect bliss. Bill
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Pogo Stick
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:34 AM
        Subject: [existlist] God, a posterior I


        I have been wondering, recently, about the whole Darwinian angle. The
        idea that smarter is better may be a concept held by those smarter;
        the suspected evolution toward the increasingly 'better' brood
        brought by evolution may be suspect as well. The whole of darwinian
        theory seems to be looking back and putting an observation into a
        neat package like a jell pill, which too many are swallowing whole
        and hard. I'll not get in line readily for the god pill and
        creationism either -- but wonder if either are not just as
        probable...and that perhaps other options which have not been
        considered are inded more likely.

        What is to say that natural selection produces something better,
        first if it is impossible to define better, and second if natural
        selection chooses to select something simply more efficient or more
        adaptible. I have suspicion that evolution might occur, but whether
        in increased or decreased capacity or as a fountain of better things
        to come, I have doubt. There is, for example, the likelihood that
        large dinasaurs came from a time when there was very little changing
        for a long period here on earth and so created themselves as large
        inadaptable beings. Once faced with challenge, they were ruined.
        While people seem to have an adaptability, and yet lack monsterous
        size, perhaps there is a lot to adapt to -- but who's to say if
        greater intelligence leads to better things, or to dissolution and
        insanity?

        The rose-colored glasses of le 'Duard have already dismissed the pogo-
        notion as incongruous with everything he was learnt in school. But as
        communication, greed and avarice over come many like a poison of
        jealous-cyanide gas released below them in their chair, can one say
        for certain that the 'new' world is better than the old one or that
        the direction is a path toward or away from god?

        It is wishful thinking that one knows something is for the best.
        Wishful as well that something will have a happy ending. Turn of fate
        or civilization might be good or bad depending on your perspective.

        And perhaps the superior beings have already been here, and left.

        Naked Flay
        -------------------------------


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT




        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • eduard
        Pogo, You should read your Darwin again. There is nothing in evolution that says a species necessarily gets smarter. A species can dead-end in a particular
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Pogo,

          You should read your Darwin again. There is
          nothing in evolution that says a species
          necessarily gets smarter. A species can dead-end
          in a particular nitch where they survive only as
          long as the nitch survives. Perhaps that is
          where mankind will end up after they destroy their
          own environment ... the earth.

          <<< What is to say that natural selection produces
          something better,
          first if it is impossible to define better, and
          second if natural
          selection chooses to select something simply more
          efficient or more
          adaptible.>>>

          Are you not defining "better" by referencing "more
          efficient" and "more adaptible"? Seems to me that
          you are contradicting your own supposition of
          impossibility.

          <<< The rose-colored glasses of le 'Duard have
          already dismissed the pogo-
          notion as incongruous with everything he was
          learnt in school. >>>

          What pogo-notion?? I don't see no notion in any
          of this.

          eduard
        • Pogo Stick
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            <<You should read your Darwin again. There is
            > nothing in evolution that says a species
            > necessarily gets smarter.>>

            No, and that's not what I said.

            People assume we are improving, and a lot would choose to believe
            that based on some bastarized version of evolution.

            It is apparent that you refuse to evolve le Duard.

            You always seem to be playing your little angel harp about how we are
            all working together for some f-ing common good baloney or heading
            off to a goal in the future which we are too small to determine.
            Crap. The point that you didn't get (true to form) was that it is not
            necessarily true that we are improving in any form...in fact our
            ability to adapt with disability and ineptitude may be the same
            mechanism that will have us keeping horrible traits that might have
            washed away if natural selection worked. For example, stupid people
            wouldn't be allowed to own computers so they could dirty up the
            internet with their idiotic projections about the happiness of
            neurons.

            But you hear whatever delusion you want. You prove my ideas about
            delusion every day just by breathing and acting, as much as you
            oppose every one of them. It is all too apparent that you are
            deluded. Ignorance has more than one form, and I have my fair share,
            but not learning from experience is not one of them. The only thing
            I'll deny for certain is my eptitude. You, however, are your own god.
            Congratulations, you found you.

            Flapping Ears
            ---------------------------------
          • eduard
            Pogo,
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Pogo,

              <<< No, and that's not what I said.>>>

              I cant help you there. Normally I don't keep past
              emails. But then if you want to deny what you
              said, then that's Ok ... whatever keeps your
              neurons happy ....

              <<< It is apparent that you refuse to evolve le
              Duard.>>>

              That is strange, considering that it comes from
              someone who thinks of himself/herself as nothing
              ....

              <<< You always seem to be playing your little
              angel harp about how we are all working together
              for some f-ing common good baloney or heading off
              to a goal in the future which we are too small to
              determine. >>>

              Well, at least someone has to play the harp. It
              would hardly be you. What you yourself fail
              [miserably] to understand is that the good we have
              today is due to the acts of society. I am quite
              sure that you will find a few things to complain
              about. If it were left to the likes of you with
              your nothingness and absurdist philosophy, you
              would not have an internet and you would have to
              resort to smoke-signals or carrier pigeons or
              something.

              <<< For example, stupid people wouldn't be allowed
              to own computers so they could dirty up the
              internet with their idiotic projections about the
              happiness of neurons. >>>

              Well ... excuse me! You may dislike NOOism, but I
              don't see anything coming from your way. All that
              you seem to have an aptitude for is complaining.
              You offer nothing substantive.

              eduard
            • Pogo Stick
              The only thing I have to offer is exactly what you don t want to hear. In my worthless opinion, you would be the idiot that
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                <<You offer nothing substantive.>>

                The only thing I have to offer is exactly what you don't want to
                hear. In my worthless opinion, you would be the idiot that had
                been discussed as needing eradication.

                I. Waste Mytime
                --------------------------
              • eduard
                Pogo,
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Pogo,

                  <<< The only thing I have to offer is exactly what
                  you don't want to hear. In my worthless opinion,
                  you would be the idiot that had been discussed as
                  needing eradication.>>>

                  Of course, that would be nothing new ... as you
                  have already eradicated yourself. I am not so
                  inclined as to follow your example.

                  eduard
                • Pogo Stick
                  Message 8 of 8 , Oct 2, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    <<you have already eradicated yourself. I am not so
                    > inclined as to follow your example.
                    >
                    > eduard>>

                    That is because you think far too highly of yourself and your
                    importance, and all the glorious things you can teach us lesserlings.

                    Uppa Tree
                    ---------------------------------
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.