Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More and more I believe evolution certainly existed, yet I see it as going the oppisite way than most. I think things are evolving less and less, not more and more; so evolution is more reserved and limited than it used to be. When evolution appeared, emergant evolution, it was at its strongest obviously during the times of Primordal man. And I think evolution in Primordal man is evidence of God changing early man many times. Not from animal to human, but human to human, in one form and shape to another.
As the Archaeologist has worked back he has not found traces of civilization ceasing altogether and " Ape Man" appearing, nor has he found skeletons or skeletal patterns which reveal changes from a chimp skeleton to a human skeleton; every skeleton that I have seen is complettely human, or more within the range of human than ape. Man is Man, and has been man no matter how far back we go.
Even with prehistoric animals, I see a reserved type of reverse evolution; from big to smaller, from exagerated to more simple. Dinosauer to dog, Teradacto to bird; it seems more like a reserved evolution to me; things being designed for " Future use" or future patterns to be settled on and the evolution decreased, not increased.
So I see an evolution that is more a resignation, becomming more submissive as time emerges. And not that it has even now totally disappeared, but it is now so resigned, it is minor at best. Evolution now has no resilience, no capacity to spring back to its primordal emergence- which was far more powerful.
So evolution is yeilding, I think residual; Reserved. I think human consciousness is yet still actively evolving and is not reserved.
The wooly Mamoth looses hair and gets smaller, species began going extint and not many new have emerged. So the current theory of Emergent evolution seems waning in my view. All properties of matter have already emerged from now extinct forerunners, primordal evoution has not been guided to substain itself to be continually repeated in new emergants which distinctively evolve continually. We know that whatever emerged, it guides the course of events in its brain at least, which is why I say only human consciousness has continued to evolve, not the physical brain itself.
We cannot be bullied into suppressing the reality of things, but if reality is supressing itself right in front of our eyes, then theorys can no longer govern our mental discernment. I don't even see consciousness itself emerging in evolution, consciousness is a trump card to creation in my view. Only it has given continual evolution a reasonable leg to stand on. Its been a theoretical breakthrough for me to even see God using evolution in primordal man, but only because of archaeology and the first flush of consciousness appearing in civilized man, could I see this. The breakaway from the traditional fundalmentalist view of Adam being the first man, to understanding him as the first man with consciousness.
Certainly one way of solving evolution is to keep its majority influence primordal, and there really is robust evidence for that. What was wrong with emergent evolution was not the doctrine, but the source and timming of it.
More and more I believe evolution certainly existed, yet I see it as going the oppisite way than most. I think things are evolving less and less, not more and more; so evolution is more reserved and limited than it used to be. When evolution appeared, emergant evolution, it was at its strongest obviously during the times of Primordal man. And I think evolution in Primordal man is evidence of God changing early man many times. Not from animal to human, but human to human, in one form and shape to another.
As the Archaeologist has worked back he has not found traces of civilization ceasing altogether and " Ape Man" appearing, nor has he found skeletons or skeletal patterns which reveal changes from a chimp skeleton to a human skeleton; every skeleton that I have seen is complettely human, or more within the range of human than ape. Man is Man, and has been man no matter how far back we go.
Even with prehistoric animals, I see a reserved type of reverse evolution; from big to smaller, from exagerated to more simple. Dinosauer to dog, Teradacto to bird; it seems more like a reserved evolution to me; things being designed for " Future use" or future patterns to be settled on and the evolution decreased, not increased.
So I see an evolution that is more a resignation, becomming more submissive as time emerges. And not that it has even now totally disappeared, but it is now so resigned, it is minor at best. Evolution now has no resilience, no capacity to spring back to its primordal emergence- which was far more powerful.
So evolution is yeilding, I think residual; Reserved. I think human consciousness is yet still actively evolving and is not reserved.
Well I hope you realize that humans evolved only just lately. I wouldn't call that "reserved evolution."
Well I hope you realize that humans evolved only just lately. I wouldn't call that "reserved evolution."
Well whatever evolution in humans you are refering to ( which I would like for you to explain, if you will), has to be a minor submissive change, because I view all evolution outside of human consciousness as waning to weaker; nothing near dramatic as primordal evolution. It has to be reserved and reclining. I think all biological evolution is now selectively submissive, the natural selections have long been already made.
The evolving connection between ape and man in primordal times I think was made in an effort to explain our existence, along with animal existence; they were simply combined in this theory. So many evolutionist have no appreciation of the discontinuity between apes and humans, see no distinct seperation. I think the defining seperation ( outside of creation), is consciousness. The interiority of consciousness just couldnot in any sense be evolved by natural selection out of mere assemblages of molecules and cells. There has to be more to human evolution than mere matter, chance, and survival.
Something must be added from outside of this closed system to account for something so different as consciousness.
Well whatever evolution in humans you are refering to ( which I would like for you to explain, if you will), has to be a minor submissive change, because I view all evolution outside of human consciousness as waning to weaker; nothing near dramatic as primordal evolution. It has to be reserved and reclining. I think all biological evolution is selectively submissive, the natural selections have long been already made.
I have to sort of agree. I think that most of the major things to evolve have been evolved, however once in a while we will see some new trait evolve once in a while.
I have to sort of agree. I think that most of the major things to evolve have been evolved, however once in a while we will see some new trait evolve once in a while.
Well then thats reserved or withheld, and every now and then a little future change may occur. Minimal disclosure. I admit my choice of terms may not be the best, but I had to call the theory something; so I elected Reserved Evolution.
The early periods of evolution were the most dramatic, because I think that God was in the misdt of his creating; still actively creating and designing man; which I think is incredible, actively designing live living creatures while they yet live! But I don't think they were conscious of him doing it, and I still don't think humans today are as conscious of what God is doing as they think they are.
More and more I believe evolution certainly existed, yet I see it as going the oppisite way than most. I think things are evolving less and less, not more and more; so evolution is more reserved and limited than it used to be. When evolution appeared, emergant evolution, it was at its strongest obviously during the times of Primordal man. And I think evolution in Primordal man is evidence of God changing early man many times. Not from animal to human, but human to human, in one form and shape to another.
As the Archaeologist has worked back he has not found traces of civilization ceasing altogether and " Ape Man" appearing, nor has he found skeletons or skeletal patterns which reveal changes from a chimp skeleton to a human skeleton; every skeleton that I have seen is complettely human, or more within the range of human than ape. Man is Man, and has been man no matter how far back we go.
Even with prehistoric animals, I see a reserved type of reverse evolution; from big to smaller, from exagerated to more simple. Dinosauer to dog, Teradacto to bird; it seems more like a reserved evolution to me; things being designed for " Future use" or future patterns to be settled on and the evolution decreased, not increased.
So I see an evolution that is more a resignation, becomming more submissive as time emerges. And not that it has even now totally disappeared, but it is now so resigned, it is minor at best. Evolution now has no resilience, no capacity to spring back to its primordal emergence- which was far more powerful.
So evolution is yeilding, I think residual; Reserved. I think human consciousness is yet still actively evolving and is not reserved.
You've got the process all wrong, but at least you are admitting something "evolutionish" IS happening, so here's a gold star!
You've got the process all wrong, but at least you are admitting something "evolutionish" IS happening, so here's a gold star!
Well thank you, I see what I see how I see it, I can do no more; none of us can. We can only be conscious of that we are conscious of. I even view the evolution of language as now reserved, only minor submissive growth. I think early man had almost no speech or language, and up to 40,000 b.c., there is precious little archaeological evidence of it. Through the Pleistocene ages, I think they had visual and vocal signals, but that was far removed from the syntactial languages we practice today.
Yet even the early evolution of language was far more dramatic than it is now. Those were the exciting times, the dramatic beginning of language and its initial evolution; and now its far more passive.
I would say evolution is moreso declining and reserved, even in animals the peak has already been reached is species and is either maintaining or reclining. Primates have evolved a tremendous variety of complex signals, which I think were God given, but yet still complex in its early evolution; tactile communication ranging from mounting and grooming to various kinds of embracing, nuzzling and fingering; and this pattern is just simply being repeated over and over again in time with no new behavior. They have the same exact sounds now as they did 10,000 years ago; assorted grunts, barks, screeching, and yaking. Nonvocal signals such as grinding teeth or beating branches, there is no more evolution in them.
And I think it is literally the same synapse in the whole animal kingdom, no new emergent evolution that is dramatic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
