progress?

[dale]

I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in nature?
Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?


--
Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
https://www.dalekelly.org/
Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner

[dale]

On 4/21/2020 5:43 PM, erik simpson wrote:

> Please confine your efforts to talk.origins. This group is ostensibly about
> paleontology.
>

talk.origins hasn't lived up to its charter of a place for
evolution/creation debate ... not that there necessarily is a debate

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 21.4.2020. 22:57, dale wrote:
> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in nature?
> Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>

What is "creation"?

[dale]

evolution of consciousness?

[John Harshman]

On 4/21/20 1:57 PM, dale wrote:
> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in nature?
> Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>
>

In 1987, the Spring Systematics Symposium at the Field Museum had the
title "Evolutionary Progress", and the following year the symposium
volume was published. This is the book:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Progress-Matthew-H-Nitecki/dp/0226586936

I haven't read it, but I was at the symposium. As I recall, Francisco
Ayala spoke in favor of a general concept of progress in evolution, and
was roundly shut down during the discussion. S.J. Gould was scathing,
among others. As he should have been. Don't recall anyone else.

But you might like to try the book.

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 22.4.2020. 1:11, dale wrote:
> On 4/21/2020 6:54 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 21.4.2020. 22:57, dale wrote:
>>> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in
>>> nature? Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>>>
>>
>>          What is "creation"?
>>
>
> evolution of consciousness?
>

Does it have progress?
(Sorry for private mail, I have stupid news reader, which is hard to
control.)

[dale]

On 4/21/2020 7:25 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.4.2020. 1:11, dale wrote:
>> On 4/21/2020 6:54 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 21.4.2020. 22:57, dale wrote:
>>>> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in
>>>> nature? Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>>>>
>>>
>>>          What is "creation"?
>>>
>>
>> evolution of consciousness?
>>
>
>         Does it have progress?

>         ...

I sure hope

“You are not in the universe, you are the universe, an intrinsic part
of it. Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the
universe is becoming conscious of itself. - Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth

[dale]

I'll add the book to my list. Busy with some research for a dissertation
now.

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 22.4.2020. 1:29, dale wrote:
> On 4/21/2020 7:25 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.4.2020. 1:11, dale wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2020 6:54 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 21.4.2020. 22:57, dale wrote:
>>>>> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in
>>>>> nature? Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          What is "creation"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> evolution of consciousness?
>>>
>>
>>          Does it have progress?
>>          ...
>
> I sure hope
>
> “You are not in the universe, you are the universe, an intrinsic part
> of it. Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the
> universe is becoming conscious of itself. - Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth
>

I am from Europe, so I am not quite aware of Creationism. I presume
that this means that God created everything per his liking. Those
Biblical concepts are full with holes, and nobody actually discusses
those, because the ones who don't like the concept, they don't care, and
the ones who do like it, they tend to be blind for holes. So, this
concept is based on belief, as I understood. So, no thinking, no
discussing, no searching for truth, just accepting. Per my view, people
who are unable to think, they accept views from others.
Regarding other concepts, these are very difficult to understand.
Basically, how much smart you are, that much you will grasp, that much
you will understand.
For me, the standard concept of Evolution should be too slow for the
changes that I see happening. But, the idea that genes are learning
during a lifetime, for me it fits fine. Well, if they are learning, the
process of learning is a progression.
I presume that the standard view would be that things happen
"conditioned" (I am not English speaker, I hope that this translates well).
BTW, I am in no way expert on this, you don't have to believe me, my
view is not based on some great knowledge. But, you got to think for
yourself anyway, because those who have great knowledge, this doesn't
mean that they have anything else besides that. Every idiot can have
knowledge, for this you need good memory, and not anything else.

[dale]

On 4/21/2020 8:34 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.4.2020. 1:29, dale wrote:
>> On 4/21/2020 7:25 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 22.4.2020. 1:11, dale wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2020 6:54 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 21.4.2020. 22:57, dale wrote:
>>>>>> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in
>>>>>> nature? Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          What is "creation"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> evolution of consciousness?
>>>>
>>>
>>>          Does it have progress?
>>>          ...
>>
>> I sure hope
>>
>> “You are not in the universe, you are the universe, an intrinsic part
>> of it. Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the
>> universe is becoming conscious of itself. - Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth
>>
>
>         I am from Europe, so I am not quite aware of Creationism. I
> presume that this means that God created everything per his liking.

When I think about the first cause argument I think that the answer
might be that the last effect is the first cause. Cyclical cause/effect?
One with Godhead consciousness?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

> Those Biblical concepts are full with holes, and nobody actually
> discusses those, because the ones who don't like the concept, they don't
> care, and the ones who do like it, they tend to be blind for holes.

The Bible has its place in Universalism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism

> So,
> this concept is based on belief, as I understood. So, no thinking, no
> discussing, no searching for truth, just accepting. Per my view, people
> who are unable to think, they accept views from others.

Best practices?

>         Regarding other concepts, these are very difficult to
> understand. Basically, how much smart you are, that much you will grasp,
> that much you will understand.

There are some very intelligent people out there.

>         For me, the standard concept of Evolution should be too slow
> for the changes that I see happening. But, the idea that genes are
> learning during a lifetime, for me it fits fine. Well, if they are
> learning, the process of learning is a progression.

This leads me to epigenetics ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

... and the possibility of learnings to be not only programmed in a
lifetime, but also inheritable also

>         I presume that the standard view would be that things happen
> "conditioned" (I am not English speaker, I hope that this translates well).

see cause and effect above

>         BTW, I am in no way expert on this, you don't have to believe
> me, my view is not based on some great knowledge. But, you got to think
> for yourself anyway, because those who have great knowledge, this
> doesn't mean that they have anything else besides that. Every idiot can
> have knowledge, for this you need good memory, and not anything else.

Sociology is additionally beneficial to the above?

[Mario Petrinovic]

(Sorry again, wrong button. I have two buttons, one says "Reply", and
one "Followup". Of course, I push the "Reply", because I was used to
that in my previous news reader. But "Reply" sends private mail. In a
news group? Stupid.)

On 22.4.2020. 3:43, dale wrote:
> On 4/21/2020 8:34 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.4.2020. 1:29, dale wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2020 7:25 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 22.4.2020. 1:11, dale wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2020 6:54 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 21.4.2020. 22:57, dale wrote:
>>>>>>> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in
>>>>>>> nature? Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          What is "creation"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> evolution of consciousness?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          Does it have progress?
>>>>          ...
>>>
>>> I sure hope
>>>
>>> “You are not in the universe, you are the universe, an intrinsic part
>>> of it. Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the
>>> universe is becoming conscious of itself. - Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth
>>>
>>
>>          I am from Europe, so I am not quite aware of Creationism. I
>> presume that this means that God created everything per his liking.
>
>
> When I think about the first cause argument I think that the answer
> might be that the last effect is the first cause. Cyclical cause/effect?
> One with Godhead consciousness?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

I am not that much into it. "First cause" would be "what
started all this"? Shouldn't this be the simplest possible thing, not
the most complicated possible thing?
From the simple thing you can develop a variation. I am not
sure that you can develop this in a symmetrical world.
But, those are really hard questions, and I think that nobody
knows the answers to those.
Anyway, we do have lifeless planets, and there is a reason why
life emerged on this particular planet. Because it is in good thermal
zone (where water shifts through states), this planet has a water flow,
along with many different elements, and it is in pretty safe area of the
Universe.

>> Those Biblical concepts are full with holes, and nobody actually
>> discusses those, because the ones who don't like the concept, they
>> don't care, and the ones who do like it, they tend to be blind for holes.
>
> The Bible has its place in Universalism?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism

I see a lot of various interpretation of the term (I am only
reading prologues). So, people even don't agree on what is universal in
the "universalism". For me, this looks pretty much like "wishful"
thinking. I mean, people who are insisting on accepting the Bible
suddenly pretend that they know more. If they want, they may follow
Bible. If the way they are following it turned up to be beneficial, they
will have no problems. If not, they will have problems.
I mean, religion is just a thing, which has its purpose, and
nothing else. It wasn't present from ancient times, it emerged at some
point, it evolved because it had purpose in that point in time, when
purpose ceased to be adequate, religion will disappear. Religion needs
believers. As soon as the last believer dies, the religion will die. A
lot religions died in the past. How long will Christianity last, we will
see. I really don't understand why would Christianity be different?

>> So, this concept is based on belief, as I understood. So, no thinking,
>> no discussing, no searching for truth, just accepting. Per my view,
>> people who are unable to think, they accept views from others.
>
> Best practices?

Yes, why not. The problem is, these are practices of the past
times. Each time needs adjustment. I don't think that religion can
change, but it needs to change to accommodate the needs of present times.

>>          Regarding other concepts, these are very difficult to
>> understand. Basically, how much smart you are, that much you will
>> grasp, that much you will understand.
>
> There are some very intelligent people out there.

Good for them. It is *you* (and *me*) who have to be
intelligent enough. If you are not, what's the use of those people being
intelligent for you? So that, by following them, *you* can succeed in
your life? Fair enough, try it by yourself, we'll see how this will end
up. There are some very smart thoughts in Christianity. Suit yourself.
There are also some traps in Christianity. Will you follow blindly? If
not, is this a Christianity, then?
I am conservative guy. I like to take good things from the
past. Yes, there were some smart people in the past, and they compiled
religions the best they could.

>>          For me, the standard concept of Evolution should be too slow
>> for the changes that I see happening. But, the idea that genes are
>> learning during a lifetime, for me it fits fine. Well, if they are
>> learning, the process of learning is a progression.
>
> This leads me to epigenetics ...
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
>
> ... and the possibility of learnings to be not only programmed in a
> lifetime, but also inheritable also

Well, this is high mathematics for me. Anyway, they are trying
to find the physical mechanism of changes, onto which they would like to
interfere, so that they can "create" (new forms, that would serve them).
In my view, changes have to be affected by our emotions. We
have good and bad emotions. The goal of organism is to strive for good
emotions. Why some emotions are good or bad? This also changes over
time, depending on the result of the change. They say that success is sexy.
Anyway, my view is that the mechanism is too delicate, and too
all-encompassing, to be ever understand by anybody. You, literally, have
to be God to understand all this. Eventually you can find some little
pieces, but I don't think that you'll be able to do anything
constructive with those, you got to have all-encompassing knowledge to
"create" something constructive. But, they did manage to make some
artificial living tissue, that's true (if I didn't understand something
wrongly).

>>          I presume that the standard view would be that things happen
>> "conditioned" (I am not English speaker, I hope that this translates
>> well).
>
> see cause and effect above
>
>
>>          BTW, I am in no way expert on this, you don't have to believe
>> me, my view is not based on some great knowledge. But, you got to
>> think for yourself anyway, because those who have great knowledge,
>> this doesn't mean that they have anything else besides that. Every
>> idiot can have knowledge, for this you need good memory, and not
>> anything else.
>
> Sociology is additionally beneficial to the above?
>

I don't understand this.

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 22.4.2020. 3:43, dale wrote:

> There are some very intelligent people out there.

Ha, ha, in "my time" there were some pretty clever bands. One of those
was Jethro Tull. I particularly liked this song, :) :
https://youtu.be/Esp_hOlFqiM

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ok, I'll tell you what I found.
"Listen" to what I will say: 'It is good to be evil.'.
I don't know how this sounds to you in your language, but in my
language it induces a shock. When you hear this, you cannot accept it,
no way, and you are trying to find some logical construction which will
disprove that. Even if you don't find it, you will never accept this
until you die (if you are a normal person). Why? Because the very
thought about this induces a shock in you. So, you will never accept
this, even if it is logically correct. And, if you are the only one who
is evil, it is logically correct, because the worse people around are
doing, the better your position is. The problem is, what will happen if
everybody starts to behave like this? Well, in that case your species
will go extinct, and there will be no more species that think that this
is the right thing to do.
Now, this logic applies to humans, but, the more primitive humans are,
the more this shock has a sense, because only this shock prevents you to
do harm to others. But, this logic also applies to the most primitive
animals. If single celled animal is doing harm to another of his
species, and if all behave the same, then the same thing will happen,
they will go extinct. So, this shock against doing harm to your species
should be embedded in *all* organisms, otherwise the species will not be
able to survive.
Now, the problem is that this shock is emotional, so it is embedded in
one organism. But organizations, like religious organizations, they
don't have embedded emotions, and their leaders have to behave
logically, for the best benefit of the religious organization. So, you
will frequently encounter that they are teaching that it is *good* to be
evil towards anybody from whom this organization feels threatened. So,
they are actually justifying evil deeds, because this prevents religious
organization to be weaker.
In middle ages Catholic church was very strong, while common people
were poor. Vikings, when attacking England, didn't attack villages, but
monasteries. Because monasteries were full with gold. Catholic church
continues with the practice, and you will find that countries where
Catholic church is strong, regularly have poor common people, those are
poor countries.

[Mario Petrinovic]

You will find out that all modern religions started at 6 century BC.
Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Christian religion at that time, under
Joshua, went through the biggest change. Up till then it was just a
normal religion. Joshua transformed it.
Why 6 century BC? Because everything (modern civilization) started at
that time. Regular army, money coins, everything. Assyria made first
regular army at that time. Up till then there was no regular army. A
Pharaoh would collect peasants, dress them in matching outfit, and
peasants would be army in war. Those peasants would work on fields
during peace time, and thus feeding themselves. But regular soldiers
cannot do this, they have to train. So, how will they feed themselves,
and get everything else that you need in life? So, money coins were
invented for that purpose, so that they can buy the things they need.
This regular army was so mighty that Assyria managed to conquer even
Egypt. Up till then we had regular kingdoms. Assyria was the first
super-power. Because of regular army.
But now the ancient lifestyle changed. Now people started to rush for
money. Religions up to that time were classic religions, explaining
natural phenomenons, like lightning, earthquake, and so on. There was a
god for every phenomenon. But at 6 century BC that changed, now
religions started to promote old values, spiritual values, as opposed to
monetary value.
So, this is in essence of all modern religions.

[Oxyaena]

On 4/21/2020 4:57 PM, dale wrote:
> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in nature?
> Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>
>

Looks like it's time to pull out the killfile.

<plonk>

--
"I would rather be the son of an ape than be descended from a man afraid
to face the truth." - TH Huxley

https://peradectes.wordpress.com/

[dale]

On 4/22/2020 3:39 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 4/21/2020 4:57 PM, dale wrote:
>> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in
>> nature? Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>>
>>
>
> Looks like it's time to pull out the killfile.
>
> <plonk>
>

</plonk> ?

[Zeb Dee]

On 22/04/2020 02:43, dale wrote:
> On 4/21/2020 8:34 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.4.2020. 1:29, dale wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2020 7:25 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 22.4.2020. 1:11, dale wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2020 6:54 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 21.4.2020. 22:57, dale wrote:
>>>>>>> I have heard evolution isn't progress. Doesn't progress exist in
>>>>>>> nature? Where does it fit within the creation/evolution debate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          What is "creation"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> evolution of consciousness?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          Does it have progress?
>>>>          ...
>>>
>>> I sure hope
>>>
>>> “You are not in the universe, you are the universe, an intrinsic part
>>> of it. Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the
>>> universe is becoming conscious of itself. - Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth
>>>
>>
>>          I am from Europe, so I am not quite aware of Creationism. I
>> presume that this means that God created everything per his liking.
>
>
> When I think about the first cause argument I think that the answer
> might be that the last effect is the first cause. Cyclical cause/effect?
> One with Godhead consciousness?

What is a godhead - a weird way of saying head of a god?

[dale]

might be God consciousness as in pantheism or panentheism?

[Oxyaena]

On 4/23/2020 10:01 AM, Zeb Dee wrote:

Aside from dale's typical word-salad, a "godhead" is another word for
the Christian Trinity IIRC.