|
Home > Archive > Yoga > September 2004 > evolution
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| kizmet 2004-09-21, 3:30 am |
| How do you think humans evolved?
I wonder what was the parent of the first human like.
How do u tie that in with Siva Shakti and life manifest.
What is the nature of Shakti and Siva?
Where did they spring from?
| |
| J.D. Campbell 2004-09-21, 3:30 am |
| I once saw a set of very large very large stone slabs full of impressed
trilobytes fossils as in hundreds upon hundreds literally on top of each
other all sizes shapes basicly the same creature slight variations very
slight yet different .
So i felt that they were receptive to rapid change in limits.
So i felt there was a complete set of answers far eaiser to find in the
past than the present the past the presents foundation.
Yet i also somehow came to know that the earth was sized perfect for man
the future as the past had been figured in steps the only possibility
what exists now as this is existing..oh it could of been other but it
wasnt as a limit was in effect from innumerable possibilties........so
it came to me that the end result was in effect before the beginning
from a past set of worlds and i dropped the big bang myself realizing
this was one of many prior now sized rated dialed in before it was /
Then with a unusual nights siddhas i came upon sparkly and smokey two
manus the upper lower sparkly the heavenly composite upper and smokey
the composite lower immediate present ghostly one or smokey one a result
from prior siddhas and it occured oh thats how they these worlds come to
be sized.........and i left it at that resurrection all is new.....jd
| |
|
|
anon wrote:
> "David" <David@home.org> wrote in message
> news:Qzf1d.28103$Of3.25942@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> there are mental constructs, and then there are mental constructs...
> some constructs are more testable in the world of matter and energy.
> physical theories have to be testable to be accepted...
>
And that is the realm of science. But their are other realms where the
"proofs" of science are not accepted. In evaluating such realms, perhaps
the only real comparison one can make is on consistency; does a thought
system follow its own established rules. Beyond that you are comparing
apples and squirrels.
>
> is there any non-technical book that explains the mechanics of evolution
> from the
> bottom up (is from the point of view of the dna), which you think
> answers these questions.
> thanks
>
>
John Maynard Smith's "The Theory of Evolution" is a standard, and while
originally published in the 70's has recently been updated.
There is also a collection of essays that I found very readable, I think
it was called "Contemporary Evolutionary Theory" or something like that.
I can't find it on my bookshelf right now.
For thoughtful critiques and "adjustments" to evolutionary theory, pick
up almost anything by Stephen Jay Gould.
| |
|
|
<kizmet> wrote in message news:q6i3k097h0up3fdk7paj83mns4jnebqf05@4ax.com...
>
>
> I guess I'm realizing science is limited in answering things.
> That's a big realization for me.
if the theory of evolution via genetic mutations is accepted...
it failes to explain how at the _same_ time period mutations
to produce both male and female individuals happened
which could then further reproduce to sustain the species.
the probability of a random mutation producing a new species
is staggeringly small. expecting the same mutation to happening
around the same time, _twice_, producing a male and female,
is ridiculous.
imho mutations are not random - there
has to be a guiding intelligence behind them.
| |
|
|
anon wrote:
> "David" <David@home.org> wrote in message
> news:P1E0d.34706$w_4.5565358@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> a model of physical reality is a model, but the intent is to explain the
> workings of reality, and not categorization. categories are mental,
> while interactions are physical.
So in your world the physical has ontological supremacy. Tell me, how do
you talk about the physical without the mental?
>
>
>
> please teach me - my background is physics/engineering and you'll have to
> explain the physical process by which new chomosomes appeared
> ("physicists are linguistically challenged"). your
> explanation is linguistic ("changes" to what?) . from a physical point of
> view
> the transmission from parent to offspring is using dna. that is where the
> explanations have to be tested.
>
> a jump from 44 (or whatever) number of chromosomes to 46 is mathematically
> discontinous. one generation had 44, the next had 46. there cannot be a
> gradual
> jump between integers. what is the mechanism?
>
>
What the theory says is simple. If you want to use your DNA example we
can. Two beings with 44 pairs of chromosomes mate, they have an
offspring that, for whatever reason, has 46 pairs. That offspring either
dies without procreating, procreates but doesn't pass on the extra
pairs, or procreates and passes on those genes. If it is the last then
it possible that after awhile the population of these beings will be
mixed 44 and 46 pair chromosomes. If something happens in their
environment that gives an advantage to the 46 pair beings, they may
survive while the 44 pair variety die out. Done. (Don't think 44 and 46
chromosome varieties can procreate? read some about hermaphrodism).
Of course, this is a simplification, and as I said, the theory does not
explain emergence, it only explains backward.
And as for physicists being challenged linguistically, not so at all.
They just have a different language of specialization. Still, that is
not an excuse for not using your brain to think through a problem. I
encourage you not to trash an entire theoretical world unless you
understand it first. There are lots of problems with evolutionary
theory, but the one you are trying to pick out is not one of them.
David
| |
|
| anon wrote:
> "David" <David@home.org> wrote in message
> news:NqI0d.27276$Of3.1708@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> the physical theories are far more successful in manipulating the world
> of matter and energy.
> nowhere did i claim that they are not mental constructs.
You ignored the point. You can not manipulate the world of matter and
energy without recourse to mental constructs.
>
>
>
>
> can a being with 46 chromosomes procreate with a being of 44 chromosomes?
> it all boils down to that.
>
>
The example was, of course, simplifies. But if you would actually spend
sometime reading about these issues you would learn that the number of
chromosome pairs is not the only issue when it comes to ability to
reproduce.
David
| |
| apikoros@nonken.net 2004-09-21, 3:30 am |
| "anon" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> can a being with 46 chromosomes procreate with a being of 44 chromosomes?
> it all boils down to that.
I have a friend with Kleinfelter's Syndrome. He has fathered three
children.
| |
|
|
"David" <David@home.org> wrote in message
news:Qzf1d.28103$Of3.25942@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> You ignored the point. You can not manipulate the world of matter and
> energy without recourse to mental constructs.
>
there are mental constructs, and then there are mental constructs...
some constructs are more testable in the world of matter and energy.
physical theories have to be testable to be accepted...
> The example was, of course, simplifies. But if you would actually spend
> sometime reading about these issues you would learn that the number of
> chromosome pairs is not the only issue when it comes to ability to
> reproduce.
>
is there any non-technical book that explains the mechanics of evolution
from the
bottom up (is from the point of view of the dna), which you think
answers these questions.
thanks
| |
|
| Kizmet wrote:
> How do you think humans evolved?
> I wonder what was the parent of the first human like.
> How do u tie that in with Siva Shakti and life manifest.
> What is the nature of Shakti and Siva?
> Where did they spring from?
What is your view?
Bee.
--
[I have found my Shangri-La in ntlworld.]
| |
|
|
"David" <David@home.org> wrote in message
news:Anq0d.24165$Of3.7935@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> anon wrote:
news:q6i3k097h0up3fdk7paj83mns4jnebqf05@4ax.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Evolution as a theory only explains backwards, it does not explain
> emergence. It is also a theory of categorization, as is the taxonomy
in that sense theory of evolution is just linguistic gymnastics.
darwin could not explain the mechanism of evolution because dna
had not been deciphered yet....
true darwin assumed gradual evolution. but reality is there is no
gradual evolution. mutations happen and changes appear.
there is a theory that suggests the genes active in the parents
remain active in the foetus, so gradual traits like dark humans from
africa slowly became light skinned in northern climes. but this is
not a new species - just specialization of genes.
a new species
represents a jump in the dna - something hard to explain given
random mutations are highly unlikely to produce the perfect
organisms seen in nature.
> which dilineates species. A new species of whale did not simply appear,
> rather, marine biologists distinguished these whales from others as a
a species is that set of organisms which can only reproduce
fertile offspring within the set.
at some point the break from chimpanzee to man happened - when
their dna could not combine fruitfully any more.
> species. Likewise, there is no need for a male and female change, only
> one needs to have the change to pass it on. That one small change does
> not make a new species. However, after many such small changes, the
> taxonomists will come along and say its a new species.
>
man has 46 chromosomes (+ the sex chromosome).
some where, at some time, the jump to 46 happened. that jump
cannot be gradual. to procreate that set of 46, another organism
with 46 was needed.
| |
| kizmet 2004-09-21, 3:30 am |
|
>
>The trick is to have the human form before the world exists......no easy
>feat.
>
My understanding then is brahma gave birth to shakti.
This is a cycle of renewal.
I wonder if this is the phoenix.
If not then it is reproduction.
|
| |
|
|