Send a Message
to alongcameaschneider

Comments

20

Joined

Feb 22, 2013

Badges

alongcameaschneider Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

Perhaps I owe an apology? Part II

Concerning prior posts that posed problems for perusers. Perhaps I owe an apology -- Part I Over the past year or more I've posted segments from my "Existential Series", the latter several concerning evolution. A couple email responses have made me wonder whether I owe anyone an apology for incomprehensible complexity. I free-associate my writing, and what comes out is the way I think. But I may be so far in (or off) the deep end that others don't, and don't want to bother to, wade through the verbiage to get what I'm saying. One noteworthy query from a reader was just what I'm smoking!!! If I've provided an orientation of "where I'm at" regarding existence (being born, linguistics, sexuality, evolution, etc,. via my in-depth contemplations on these generally just taken-for-granted aspects of living/being, good. But at this point, even though I haven't completed the "Series" itself (as written), I'll take a break from the final sections. Heretofore I've conveyed how "my cup runneth over" to the amazement and beauty and complexity (even existentially contradictory -- such as sectarian) of the human. In "Note to a Newborn" my specific point was that the potential of the human mind is to at least "get the idea of" if not intellectually, scientifically, even interactively collaborate with an scope of existence almost universal. Think space exploration, genetic engineering, artistic representation and replication -- and think of these human (and only human) . . animal behaviors?>??? Along through the series' segments I considered the astounding, exponential,differ ences between man and his 98% genetic-identity-r elative, chimp. From the perspective of human sexuality, so significantly a matter of recreation, not re-creation (reproduction) . . . . to the much deeper domains of the mind of man creating even beyond re-creating his specie (for example in artistic representation and scientific interventions . . . . I've tried to present a perspective for others to consider.  (Sep 2, 2013 | post #2)

Evolution Debate

Perhaps I owe an apology? Part II

The Bible (whose authority is its own assertion of infallibility -- despite its amazing self-cancellations and contradiction). Were it any other tome or document designating a six day creation of the whole universe by a "guy in the sky" whose "very good" creation so soon turns out so very bad that he floods almost all of it to death but then realizes he'd over-reacted . . . . . Think, not recite from the resected reticulum of reasonability!!! Creation-science Creationism explains anything? "Scienctific "???? But along with my dismissive critique of CreaSci has been my concerted proclamation that neoDarwinian, defacto random selection, is not only inadequate as scientific proof, but manifestly, to me overwhelmingly obviouslhy, insufficient to account for the macro-mutational miracle of the mind of man, the potential of which is to be a cognitive analog of, not only the substantive universe . . . . but the field phenomena thereof . . . and even the non-phenomenal (such as anti-particulates unto event horizons). If one considers man's activities and industries and inventions and all as "animal behavior" . . . . .?? Cumulative chance brings specie evolution to the closure of its cognition with the composition of universal dynamics??? But if mainstream evolutionary assumption is insufficient . . if creationism is just pictorialism, surely not procedural perspicacity for anything in existence, . . . . then what else is there to account for the macro-mutation unto miracle that is the potential, and even so much the actuality, of that physical evolution from ape . . . . . man?? One of my last prior posts was to mention that something more than we now teach should, perhaps, be included in the scope of what we teach in the public schools. I hope the above is a comprehensible, pro temp conclusion to my previous dissertations. Please, anyone, deal with this perspective as you will, but make it a part of, perhaps, a Christian evolution!!  (Sep 2, 2013 | post #1)

Trials Evolution

education aspects part 2

That “god-as-universal system and substance” (that which created all things, is in all things, is all things) should exalt one in his relationship with all, And that eons of it all is like a gestation in the womb of the cosmos. Creation Science makes mere guy-in-the-sky man the center of the universe with no meaning for that universe. But Evolution not only omits a whole profound dimension of what has evolved as well as how. Evolution is the insecurity and arrogance of those who pose as academia’s gods by their self-juxtaposition to the purported universe of mere chance change and survival of struggle-chaos of matter-forms. Such evolutionist-funda mentalists dare no purpose, no direction, just de facto apparitions, epiphenomena . . .not plan, not even design. Theirs is the only design -- the design-less design as their paradigm for the universe of life which is just random and chance and even chaos. THE ISSUE OF CONTENTION IS NOT GOD (or not) IN THE EVOLUTION CLASS CLASSROOM, BUT THE INCLUSION OF A GREATER DIMENSION OF EXISTENCE, AND THE DYNAMICS THEREOF, THAN MERE CHANCE . . . .OR ONE-SHOT “HOKUS-POKUS CREATION”. Implications, let alone conclusions, regarding no creative plan being involved in evolution represent not only scientific non sequitor, but presumption to the point of heresy!! How dare the neoDarwinian ethos delimit the scope of its concerns thus to oblivion of the undeniable plan inherent in the temporal and recombinant “journey” of life-form and life-awareness, so manifest through the eons and the myriads and the millions thereof that there is no denying a greater power than chance. Yet the secular “selectivists” implicitly purport and subtly promulgate that any “god” or God is either disproven or is beyond the scope of the subject. For all is based on the Random Realm of causation. Thus the “scientist” here is but an obverse creation-scientist s. Random mutation -- chaos theory applied on the cellular (or genetic) level? Or a dogmatism of exclusion of the alternatives or addendatives of existence . . . .including the “field of purposiveness”. But how dare the creation-scientist per se prate his phobic-paranoid presumptions that even were there purely random mutations subject to de facto selection or extinction (in genetic and temporal minima even unto specie and era maxima), such would pose a threat to the universal Creator? Does he have to so delimit his god and the beliefs therein and “ways” (dynamics) thereof? for could it not be that miracles of abiogenesis and mutability and selectivity and extinction and survival all (and even “randomness”) are the more marvelous in a creative “omniscience” and “Omni power” than one six-day week of mere magical manufacture???? The evolutionist can’t accept the “purposive inherence” in existence. But the Creation Scientist can’t see that Creation is its evolution.  (Aug 18, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

Educational aspects of creationism and evolutionism

part I THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECTS OF EVOLUTION The endless contention about teaching evolution vs. creation in the public schools needs examination. Evolution is taught as if its every premise and proposition were proven, whereas it (like all existence) is ultimately, we could say, based upon “science;s creation-science” -- the Big Bang. And the fossil record is not absolute proof of absolute origins And “random”, purely chance mutation, if not disproven per my discussions previously posted, is unproveable. Evolution theory unfortunately developed within an ethos of free-market exploitative materialism, reactionary rationalism, and with assertions of the sanctity of atheism thrown in by persons in high evolutionary places (the field‘s positions, not their evolved state!!). Comparing the strictly materialistic/phen omenological of evolution with, say, physics or chemistry, is unwise. The latter two do not include in their domains human intelligence and behavior and beliefs, ethics, subjectivities. Moralities. These are actual phenomena, even though one cannot sift them from encasing silt, or view them through instruments . . .or carbon- date them. Evolution omits much of the existence of existence. Humanity is not seen as an aspect of human (specie). Almost as if physics or chemistry only dealt with the reductionistics and particulates (protons, neutrons, electrons etc.) without considering the complete fields and forces within which such componential fusions and combinations and compounding occur -- factors such as how and even whether phenomena of physics (such as explosives) should be used, Yes, here are, of course, those who want religion taught in the schools no matter what. Just because they say so. But many who agitate vs. evolution or for creationism in the public school classroom may be primarily concerned with preparing their kids for life within an orientation and outlook other than chance and animalistic supremacy as the primary creators and movers of being. Again, unlike other science, here mankind is involved. by default, Evolution involves something more than mere organism. Mind!!! Oh yes, there’s an arrogance, a “cosmic projection” inherent in extremist Creation Science. The Creator of all is but the image of man. And there is such insecurity. Otherwise, the profound process of formulation and even vast temporality (the billions of years of mainstream’s paleo-time) would be something for awe and “worship”. That man and other life-forms, even from an origin-cell, relate as LIFE should humble us, yet exalt us that such marvel is THE CREATION as our systematology, our heritage. That a single-cell fertilized by some miracle to become a “molecula-vita“, what’s more to replicate . . .then variagate . . .all through the eons ,. . .complexifications . . . . reaching unto manifesting the exquisite of wonder and beauty as seen by man as he looks on and back on his lineage-in-life . . . is this not a greater conception of creation’s miracle than a “let there be . . .” or “let the earth bring forth” . . .mindless myth??  (Aug 17, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

Creation vs. evolution main categories

THE TWO SIDES AND INBETWEEN At the risk of repetition of some information from above, I think this brief overview will be of value. Evolutionism: a theory and belief that a physical process of branching continuum was involved in the variegation of life forms. Also, that from prior forms all subsequent ones are “descendents”. Theistic: belief that evolution is an anthropomorphic (human-like) God’s creative procedure. Other: anything from absolute atheism such as Dawkins (above) to the spirituality of belief in evolution as an aspect of God (whether “guy-in-the-sky” personification or existential systematology. Creationism: a belief and theory that a supernatural dynamic or “personified” agency designed and actualized and is directing, ongoing, all existence. Evolutionary: as in Theistic evolutionism (above) Religious: belief that the Bible is informative, from a minimum of inspiration and “meaning” concerning life and its formulation . . ..to significant levels of the “documentation” of existence . . . yet still interfacing with the secular sciences’ observations and data. Creation Science (“CreaSci”, you’ll allow me, I hope): belief that what the Bible states is, essentially, if not exclusively, the documentation superseding (actually dismissing any validity of) all otherwise. Old earth: interpretation of Biblical wording such as Genesis’s “day” perhaps meaning “era” or “epoch” New earth: absolute “literal” reading of Genesis thus the earth and all was made in six days and the total age since that poofogenic procedure was between 6 and l0,000 years. Dyscreative nonscience: imaginative, irrational, paranoid, even psychotic ideation-image linkages propounded as fact and even science. Flat earthers: yes, even in the 21st c. there are those who deny that the earth is a sphere!! Geocentrists: yes, believe it or not, there are those who still do . . . believe this . .  (Aug 7, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

CCV -- the proposed ways and means of being's becomings

So far I’ve considered Poofogenesis, Spontaneogenesis, Macromutation, and Evolution. At last we get to Comprehensive Creative Variation (CCV) -- my own term, remember? The beauty, even “sanctity” of a belief in an evolution of existence is that it encompasses all existence, not just parts, segments, aspects, or apparitions . . be they critters or plants, water or dry land, even heaven and earth (which are just big “parts”). The componential of all proportions must be included in a scenario and systematology of totality, the evolution not only of the subdivisions but of the universal inclusion. For evolution is a process as well as proliferation of essence. Process is like the field of which the materializations (sub-atomic and on up_ and the incarnations (even quasi-cellular and on up) are the quanta. Process is, as well, the “program” inherent in all things, thus both transcending and subtending state of (matter-form) being. the program is, as well as is of, the matter form. “Becoming” encompasses generation and degeneration both as its aspects or dimensions, “directions” only relatively. And from the sub-microscopic to the very cosmos and all that dwell therein, one master plan of almost infinite prolificity, of imponderable complexity, yet interactive cohesivity, is Creator and Creation both. Call it “God” as well, or not. Only a nominal designation is of concern, not the creative, concerted miracle of emergence, formulation, combination, reproduction, variation, complexification of existence. Darwin more accurately would have phrased it ASCENT with modification . . . .but of course I realize his “descent” referred to “descendent” relationship, rather than existential position or progression. Picture beard and robes and voice, etc. Only an aesthetic/subjecti ve of personification/pr ojection here . . .of the higher power, even “intelligence” in the miracle and the mechanics of the evolving system come to be . . . . or always having (cyclic) been ,. ,. . .and culminating (so far)(this time?) in the ultimate of evolution/replicat ion . . . .the mind of man which can be aware of it all, and beyond mere recognition, he can wonder, marvel, thrill and even sense truly religious awe . . .even contemplating chance mutations . . . . . . .  (Jul 9, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

ongoing Existential Series -- Evolution

SELECTED VARIATIONS OF CREATED THEORIES The following can be applied to various aspects of existence, even to existence in toto. But for the moment my concern will be only with the origin an diversity of life (as subset of existence, of course). Life began. At least almost no one takes issue with that (except maybe some “anthropo-nihilist s” who are nothing but figments of the imaginations of “anthrop-solipsist s”).But seriously, extremist-creation sciencist to atheist-Darwinist, a general consensus would exist that life does exist. At least that’ something. But beyond the “given” (life is”), agreement isn’t. four main categories of concern seem to apply here regarding origins (initial as well as ongoing) of life and life forms. <begin excerpting) 1. Poofogenesis 2. Spontaneogenesis 3. Macromutation (saltation) 4. Evolution a. conventional (mainstream) b. “comprehensive creative variational (CCV) [my term] Poofogenesis describes and depicts an origination of life and life-forms without establishing any basis, via a dynamic of matter and time, for such existence. Yet from the inception, the something (life) is profoundly based upon a system of existence, and is itself a complex of interaction and behavior of prior and substrate being. On the one hand, poofogenesis (such as Genesis) is linguistic abbreviation of the phenomenology of actuality (which is “systematology” of substrate componential). “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his own kind . . .. “ (Gen: 1-24) is actually meaningless. The words give us a picture (specifically, a cartoon). But the meaning of life is in the formulation and composition of life’s being. And the essence of life is not the cipher or even the overt visual configuration of life-form. the essence is the essence . . . atoms, molecules, amino acids, genes and chromosomes and proteins, biochemicals, plasmas . . . and such astoundingly complex interaction of these component elements and dimensions of life. So monogenesis presents the ultimate “gap” in its record of existence and how it came to be . . . . the failure to include the essential, the dynamic, the systematic . . .rather than a mere pictorial of extrapolated state. On the other hand, monogenesis such as the ultra-fundamentlis t belief designated by Luisiana law as “Creation-science” (Genesis presents the clomlete and only account of origins) . . .puts the Creator of the heavens and earth and all that dwell therein and -on in the capacity of a mere magician. Six days of POOFS. Just “outline” appearances (with no conception at all that a creature is a composite of such a complex of composite and constituent components and complexes of interaction thereof . . .that the systematology and mechanism and metabolism, etc. is the actual ESSENCE (“field?”) of creation and the specie-specific status-incarnation but the APPARENCY (quantum?) . . . . . ?? Genesis doesn’t consider the creation of all life as a universal substrate of sub-atomic-to-mole cular-to-biochemic al-to-protein identity (just complexifying). It doesn’t even glimpse the transcending linkage of life-forms evidenced by the skeletal chassis shared chordates, pisces through sapiens Genesis doesn’t consider the creation of the neuro-phenomenolog y whereby one created form of life differs from another in the domain of its awareness, its perceptions, appetites, approaches and avoidances, drives and diversions . . . experiences. Poofogenesis presents a cartoon strip of forms formulated by magic. Spontaneogenesis. Where poofogenesis has something suddenly created out of nothing, spontaneogenesis starts with something such as the componential or substrate-levels of existence (molecules, “primordial soup”, rotting matter, infiltration from outer-space, etc.) but assumes that . . . .well, kind of like you can plant a seed and grow a skyscraper. continued in next post . . .  (Jul 1, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

continuting from Existential Series: evolution

Ran over the word-quota yesterday. The following completes the segment from Existential prior to the next one -- the "menu of options for how life came to be; at least options in opinions and religious imaginations. Protoplasm. noun. The viscid, contractile, semi liquid, more or less granular substance that forms the principal portion of an animal or vegetable cell; sarcode. The name was first applied in 1846 to the matter in vegetable cells, which had been observed by Corte in 1772, and by Treviranus in 1807, and which was identified later with the animal substance previously known as sarcode. The protoplasm of most cells appears under high-powers of microscope as a network (spongioplasm or reticulum) containing a more fluid substance (hyaplasm or enchhylema) in its meshes. Chemically it is a mixture of 80 to 85 percent water and 15 to 20 percent solids, chiefly proteids, as albumoses, globulins, and peptones, with small quantities of fat, carbohydrates like glycogen and inosite, and mineral salts, especially those of potassium, which cause it to yield an alkaline reaction. Protoplasm has been called by Huxley, owing to its presence in all organized bodies, “the physical basis of life,” and some have held that its phenomena show that the difference between organized and unorganized matter is simply a difference in complexity of chemical constitution. It is a highly complex substance, and is regarded as a mixture of different chemical substances, but no appreciable difference is to be perceived between protoplasm of lower forms of life and those of higher animals. Protoplasm is contractile and irritable, and reproduces by self-division. It is a fact of great biological interest that in animals the essential constituent of all living parts is a substance similar to the protoplasm of plants. We cannot distinguish the two by any chemical or physical tests, and can only say that, taken as a whole, the protoplasm of plants differs from that of animals in its secretions. Funk and Wagnel’s New Standard Dictionary, p 1993 A single salmon produces 28,000,000 eggs in a season; an oyster may pass as many as 114,000,000 eggs at a single spawning; and Ascaris lumricoides var. suum, a common parasite of hogs, has been observed to pass as many as 700,000 eggs in a single 24-hour period. . . . . . . .the most slowly breeding of organisms is the elephant . . .during an active breeding life . . a single female will bear no fewer than six young. If all these survived and continued to reproduce at the same rate, then after only 750 years, the descendents of a single pair would number about 19,000,000 . . Excerpted from Dodson First, consider that all life derives from a single, identical substance-infrastr ucture -- protoplasm. Second, consider the almost exponentially prolificacy of life. Third, consider that in mainstream evolutionary theory, “first” and “second” are subject to a systematology based on strictly random, “microcosmic” variations. These “genotype” nuances result in “phenotype” variations (actual characteristics of morphology or behavior or such), some very few advantageous, thus “selected” and carried on as evolving traits. Okay, that would account for the “chicken-from-prec hicken” transition (and even unto the return-to-the-sea of the land-mammal such as whale, dolphin, etc. But, remember, RANDOM!! is the assumption. Would the myriad mutations occurring within that random realm be so bifurcated that only the most advantageous would be viable, thus evolvable? And almost all the rest would doom the intermediary variants of species-dom to extinction?? This would have to be the case or there would, as I said above, be an extant transition of specie manifestations (even bell-curve configured). But enough on this for the moment  (Jun 26, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

continuting from Existential Series: evolution

NAT’L SELECTION AS SPECIAL CREATION ?? Obviously, to deny an evolutionary process is to espouse a nihilism inclusive of God him-(it-)self . . .unless we can envision a reverberant voice from heaven saying, “Hokus-pokus shazammm!!! Hokus-poku shazammm!!!” etc. an awful lot of times during a mere six day period. Even Genesis relates processes taking place in the formation of the earth, sun and moon, plants and creatures, as well as verily contains the infrastructural systematology of the living things in the very word . . .GENEsis. And after the simplistifications of initial creation, this first book of the Bible goes on to trace dispersal and differentiation of mankind with the “beggaterama”. No matter to what he attributes the cause, anyone rational can’t deny an evolutionary process. But I am not alone in finding fictions of fixation within the factions and fact-ors [sic] of the neoDarwinian synthesis wherein the random micro-mutation (about the only acknowledged variation dynamic) seems to represent a “lottery-zation” of process nowhere else evident in the sciences or existence. Micromutation is genetic mutation perse ,. . . and genetic, as we, as the componential or structural basis of 1) “whole-chromosomal selection” (a concept seemingly sneakily almost endowing selection with the capacity to choose what and how it’ll select), and 2) “punctuated equilibria” (which sure sounds like a specially created terminology of a stymied evolutionist trying to avoid any hint of saltational/creati onistic phenomena by combining Lyelllian uniformitarian’s with hopscotch . . . .or running the gene of quantum mechanics). Yes, Natural Selection has been ensconced as usurper of the throne of Special Creation. thus, the only evolutionary plan or “purpose” one might perceive would be an epiphenomenon of default!! Not any indication of design!!! But consider that such sheer “mindloess” selection from supposed pure random city has resulted in the essential in toto replication of existencep-in-esse nce as existence-in awareness in the mind (modular and domain) of man, in the codices of its expression and exchange (ciphers and symbols) . . . .. and in the blink of time since chimpanzee!! If, from evolutionary premise and temporality, we can exclude human cognition as communication as behavior, even as evolutionary-essen ce (justbecause we discern no “morphological” medium for the manifestation thus considered merely “metaphysical”), then there’s suddenly a significant realm for which “punctuated equilibria” doesn’t make it at all. Rather, “edited reality” or “expurgated evidence” might be a propos. Also ponder that the obverse of the usual focus is really where the query should be at. It’s not so much that there’s an “incomplete” fossil record. There’s a drastic discontinuity of extant life forms which preponderant “Natural Rejection” might suitably term as process (but could not explain at all) . . . . or saltations (macro-mutation variations) even unto a “gifted-monstrosit y theory” could provide. (Actually there’s a sort of post-facto precedent for this latter widely occurring in . . . metamorphosis!!!) “Discontinuity of extant life forms” refers to an overwhelming absense of “trans-specie” gradations, intermediate critter-forms. Considering the vast, profound variation of species surviving in given biospheres and even niches, it would seem there should also be a selected breadth “in-specie” . . .perhaps even to the extent that “specie” state would be a matter of form defined (as by bell curve or spectrum, so to speak) from a somewhat pangenetic flow of incarnations and evolutions of phylogeny.  (Jun 25, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

the ultimate infrastructure of life's evolutionary contin...

Protoplasm. noun. The viscid, contractile, semi liquid, more or less granular substance that forms the principal portion of an animal or vegetable cell; sarcode. The name was first applied in 1846 to the matter in vegetable cells, which had been observed by Corte in 1772, and by Treviranus in 1807, and which was identified later with the animal substance previously known as sarcode. The protoplasm of most cells appears under high-powers of microscope as a network (spongioplasm or reticulum) containing a more fluid substance (hyaplasm or enchhylema) in its meshes. Chemically it is a mixture of 80 to 85 percent water and 15 to 20 percent solids, chiefly proteids, as albumoses, globulins, and peptones, with small quantities of fat, carbohydrates like glycogen and inosite, and mineral salts, especially those of potassium, which cause it to yield an alkaline reaction. Protoplasm has been called by Huxley, owing to its presence in all organized bodies, “the physical basis of life,” and some have held that its phenomena show that the difference between organized and unorganized matter is simply a difference in complexity of chemical constitution. It is a highly complex substance, and is regarded as a mixture of different chemical substances, but no appreciable difference is to be perceived between protoplasm of lower forms of life and those of higher animals. Protoplasm is contractile and irritable, and reproduces by self-division. It is a fact of great biological interest that in animals the essential constituent of all living parts is a substance similar to the protoplasm of plants. We cannot distinguish the two by any chemical or physical tests, and can only say that, taken as a whole, the protoplasm of plants differs from that of animals in its secretions. Funk and Wagnel’s New Standard Dictionary, p (look under "p") Is this not indication, if not "proof" of the derivation from and complexification of . . . substantive systematics of atom-molecule-orga n-organism-evoluti onary proliferation? Is not the astounding "cocktail " menu from such basal brew the more wondrous, even awe-inspiring, than a guy-image doing magic materialization of mere outlines ("kinds" ) for six "days"?? ?  (Jun 11, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

book promotion

YER BORN, LIFE SUCKS DEATH HAPPENS. Quite apart from the humorous title, this book explores in serious depth various aspects of existence that I'm "serializing " via blogs. Anyone interested in the comprehensive scope of being born, genetics, linguistics, sexuality, EVOLUTION, and finally (naturally, but not always) death . . . . should order a copy. On Kindle, also as paperback from wwww.LULU.com.  (Jun 4, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

evolution as special creation

NAT’L SELECTION AS SPECIAL CREATION ?? Obviously, to deny an evolutionary process is to espouse a nihilism inclusive of God him-(it-)self . . .unless we can envision a reverberant voice from heaven saying, “Hokus-pokus shazammm!!! Hokus-poku shazammm!!!” etc. an awful lot of times during a mere six day period. Even Genesis relates processes taking place in the formation of the earth, sun and moon, plants and creatures, as well as verily contains the infrastructural systematology of the living things in the very word . . .GENEsis. And after the simplistifications of initial creation, this first book of the Bible goes on to trace dispersal and differentiation of mankind with the “beggaterama”. No matter to what he attributes the cause, anyone rational can’t deny an evolutionary process. But I am not alone in finding fictions of fixation within the factions and fact-ors [sic] of the neoDarwinian synthesis wherein the random micro-mutation (about the only acknowledged variation dynamic) seems to represent a “lottery-zation” of process nowhere else evident in the sciences or existence. Micromutation is genetic mutation per se, . . . and genetic, as we, as the componential or structural basis of 1) “whole-chromosomal selection” (a concept seemingly sneakily almost endowing selection with the capacity to choose what and how it’ll select), and 2) “punctuated equilibria” (which sure sounds like a specially created terminology of a stymied evolutionist trying to avoid any hint of saltational/creati onistic phenomena by combining Lyelllian uniformitarian’s with hopscotch . . . .or running the gene of quantum mechanics). Yes, Natural Selection has been ensconced as usurper of the throne of Special Creation. thus, the only evolutionary plan or “purpose” one might perceive would be an epiphenomenon of default!! Not any indication of design!!! But consider that such sheer “mindless” selection from supposed pure randomness has resulted in the essential in toto replication of existence-in-essen ce as existence-in awareness in the mind (modular and domain) of man, in the codices of its expression and exchange (ciphers and symbols) . . . .. and in the blink of time since chimpanzee!! If, from evolutionary premise and temporality, we can exclude human cognition as communication as behavior, even as evolutionary-essen ce (just because we discern no “morphological” medium for the manifestation thus considered merely “metaphysical”), then there’s suddenly a significant realm for which “punctuated equilibria” doesn’t make it at all. Rather, “edited reality” or “expurgated evidence” might be a propos. Also ponder that the obverse of the usual focus is really where the query should be at. It’s not so much that there’s an “incomplete” fossil record. There’s a drastic discontinuity of extant life forms which preponderant “Natural Rejection” might suitably term as process (but could not explain at all) . . . . or saltations (macro-mutation variations) even unto a “gifted-monstrosit y theory” could provide. (Actually there’s a sort of post-facto precedent for this latter widely occurring in . . . metamorphosis!!!) “Discontinuity of extant life forms” refers to an overwhelming absense of “trans-specie” gradations, intermediate critter-forms. Considering the vast, profound variation of species surviving in given biospheres and even niches, it would seem there should also be a selected breadth “in-specie” . . .perhaps even to the extent that “specie” state would be a matter of form defined (as by bell curve or spectrum, so to speak) from a somewhat pangenetic flow of incarnations and evolutions of phylogeny.  (Jun 4, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

continuing on evolution (from the "Existential Series"

Already sent Parts I, II, and III, begging with "A brilliance hurtled" . . .concluding with "the mind of man and my condemnation of both Creationist and Darwinist narrow-,mindedness . Now to continue, I'll further scramble the tolerance of some readers with my "un-answer " of the proverbial question. CONCERNING WHICH CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR EGG 1. Anything before the first chicken was not yet a chicken. It was a pre-chicken. 2. Any “chickenish” modification of the prechicken would be an “acquired characteristic” and thus not inheritable. 3. Any inheritable modification of the prechicken would not modify the prechicken itself into a chicken because genetics don’t program proteomics in reverse . . . or in more laymanic terms, what is is not what it becomes until it does. 4. Therefore, there is no occurrence of chicken until an egg containing the DNA configuration which thence determines what develops within and then hatches as uniquely variant from prechicken state. 5. It may seem obvious at this point that egg had to have come first. But we must understand a breadth of the term which encompasses “ovum” -- and even that the fertilizing sperm cell could be the conveyance of the necessary nuanced genetic material for the variance from prechicken to chicken to occur. 6. The degree of gene-induced modification (here and in other cases of variation) may be of such infinitessimal subtlety in state of the individual and the unit-time perspective . . .that one must consider the progresswion of prechicken to chicken as an equation of sequential-molecul ar systematology, not some sudden specie-state innovation. Our focus on “species” may be but stop-motion observations primarily differentiating life into “forms” based on our observation of “states” of forms’ formations. But then again, there may be sudden “saltations” (macro-mutations) which result in significant genetic change in very short time-frames.) It should be considered that even though the egg is the first ting to contain the genetic nuance which is necessary for the chicken to be born variant from the prechicken in the ongoing “existential flow” of life-forms . . . until the contents of the egg hatch, it’s still an egg. therefore, even though the prechicken is not a chicken and thus the chicken vould not have come first, the chicken does have to come first in that its predecessor-form is but a variant egg,.  (May 29, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

The Amazing Travels of CerrjinDy

The Amazing Travels of Cerrjin Dy . A twisted treatise on existence?? Or is it just out of the deep end (the chapter of universal origins) but then just beyond the sphere (the travels of Jerry and Cindy as composite gender-mind CerrjinDy) to so many places places that actually are, though not. Yin and Yang as "awareness-ex ponential"? Their guide, the great unseen voice as non-sacramental but omni-creationistic (via evolution) God? Ants as our closest vita-systemic relatives? Psychiatry as insanity's involution? Religion as a realm replicating vicious circlling (even just by rabid rotation)??? This book presents a comprehensive perspective of existence, the depth of which is multiplied, if not factored, by how "off-the-deep -end" the premise is. (The book's? or Existence . . . . . .?) Kindle, and www.LULU.com  (May 22, 2013 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

part III

Here’s part III – part I began, “A brilliance hurtled . . .. .” In Part II I concluded `` The mind of man begins to form when . . . . . (extract from “A Note to a Newborn”) Two single cells unite, and from such microscopic fusion of such basal biologic building blocks (as if in surreal nine-month instant-replay of evolution . . . . or creatioinistic sequencing . . . . your organism’s universe of temporal and genetic essence grew. Infant grows to child and to adult, the mind proliferating complexity beyond mere maturation. Only a preexisting exponential synergy of sense and synapse can account for man’s dimension of awareness which potentially encompasses the total scope and span of existence. This ‘neural analogue” or “incarnate parallel” of the universe is born in man, and from sub particulate to cosmological, from heredity to ideation (genetic to mimetic?), from absolute zero to infinity, even from bebop to Beethoven (?), the total spectrum of creation is innate, is man’s inheritance at least potentially. To observe, sense, wonder, study, understand, interact with, often causally determine (or catalyze) vast dynamics of existence, man’s mind actualizes the innate “potential” spontaneously (through discovery or invention or other creativity or genius), and/or didactically (research and study and learning, etc.). We do not learn the scope and domain and dimension of what we are able to learn!! Consider that every creature of existence dwells within the same cosmos, the same universe. Only man identifies with and codifies (language and other symbols, representations) an “analogue dimension” of essence. . . . Knowledge!! . . . . and in the blink of time since chimpanzee . . . . . The mind of man, the culmination?/cumul ation? Of evolutionary creation (or created evolution?) . .. the mind of man is aware (the analogue/knowledge ) of the domain of being. He can know even the exacting details of its systematology and componentiality and more. By this analogue “design”: in and the intricacy of electro-chemistry interfacing with physiologic enactment, the neurosystem of man replicates existence through the media ofpainting, sculpture, recounter, enactment, imagining, graphics, and een the visual-auditory synthesis of musical representation (“programmatic” music). . . . .AND IN THE BLINK OF TIME SINCE CHIMPANZEE . . . . …… Realizing that man, the most evolved product of evolutionary process, in awareness potentially replicates the very universe including evolutionary (or creationistic) process itself (like, kind of a humungo scope of self-awareness . . .?) Realizing . . . . . . I fail to understand how anyone can NOT see the intelligent design inherent in . . even requisite for . . .all existence, especially since the evolutionary outcome of the whole miraculous process has produced man’s mind which has the potential to grasp the universal scope of it all (yea, even from quark unto quasar and so much that dwelleth within . . . .)  (May 22, 2013 | post #1)