ON THE DESTINATION OF SPECIES: by Means of Supernatural Selection,

John D. Brey · Sep 5, 2021

. . . Or the Preservation of Favored Species in the Struggle to Defeat Death.

In this book we have questioned the adequacy of the modern evolutionist explanation of the origins of new, heritable features of life and the evolution of new species and higher more inclusive taxa. The reliance on the accumulation of random mutations in DNA is not so much "wrong" as oversimplified and incomplete . . . Richard Dawkins, J. Maynard Smith, or at least their students --- will have to learn something about chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, paleontology, and the air.

Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, p. 201.

The neo-Darwinian reliance on the accumulation of random mutations in DNA is not so much an oversimplification as it's wrong-headed through and through. To say it's an oversimplification is overtly simple-minded. Margulis and Sagan say it's merely an oversimplification since they too once sipped at the holy fount that at one time was thought able to free the un-spiritual mind from the demonic idea of a divine creator. . . Alas, that time has past.

Enlightened science will, from here on out, focus on the two primary species favored in the struggle to defeat death: the Jew, and the Christian. Margulis, Sagan, Dawkins, and Smith, et.al., and or their students, will have to learn something about the Torah, the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Apostolic Writings, and the Gospels, if they want to speak of actual scientific principles in good company without giggles and snickers from their peers.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he’s a new creature, a new species, the old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:17.

John

Shadow Wolf · Sep 5, 2021

We're still on you thinking males and females are different species before we can get to this point.
And quoting a 30 year old book? We have learned much about chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, paleontology, and even the air since then.

Bear Wild · Sep 5, 2021

John D. Brey said:
. . . Or the Preservation of Favored Species in the Struggle to Defeat Death.

In this book we have questioned the adequacy of the modern evolutionist explanation of the origins of new, heritable features of life and the evolution of new species and higher more inclusive taxa. The reliance on the accumulation of random mutations in DNA is not so much "wrong" as oversimplified and incomplete . . . Richard Dawkins, J. Maynard Smith, or at least their students --- will have to learn something about chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, paleontology, and the air.

Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, p. 201.

The neo-Darwinian reliance on the accumulation of random mutations in DNA is not so much an oversimplification as it's wrong-headed through and through. To say it's an oversimplification is overtly simple-minded. Margulis and Sagan say it's merely an oversimplification since they too once sipped at the holy fount that at one time was thought able to free the un-spiritual mind from the demonic idea of a divine creator. . . Alas, that time has past.

Enlightened science will, from here on out, focus on the two primary species favored in the struggle to defeat death: the Jew, and the Christian. Margulis, Sagan, Dawkins, and Smith, et.al., and or their students, will have to learn something about the Torah, the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Apostolic Writings, and the Gospels, if they want to speak of actual scientific principles in good company without giggles and snickers from their peers.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he’s a new creature, a new species, the old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:17.

John

There is so much wrong in what you present. The book you start with accepts random mutations as an essential part of the theory of evolution. There argument is that we need to also better understand the other mechanisms that affect evolution. There are multiple additional ways both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that are important. Neo-Darwinism is not wrong headed nor simple minded. Your post is wrong headed and simple minded. Learn evolution before you say over simplistic in correct statements.

What is worse is you are claiming that Christians and Jews are a different species. The statement hate Christ is a new species is pure fantasy unless you are claiming you have found the body of Jesus and now have evidence Jesus is not genetically human. Clearly you draw the line between Christians, Jews and all other religions including Islam.

beenherebeforeagain · Sep 5, 2021

John D. Brey said:
. . . Or the Preservation of Favored Species in the Struggle to Defeat Death.

In this book we have questioned the adequacy of the modern evolutionist explanation of the origins of new, heritable features of life and the evolution of new species and higher more inclusive taxa. The reliance on the accumulation of random mutations in DNA is not so much "wrong" as oversimplified and incomplete . . . Richard Dawkins, J. Maynard Smith, or at least their students --- will have to learn something about chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, paleontology, and the air.

Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, p. 201.

The neo-Darwinian reliance on the accumulation of random mutations in DNA is not so much an oversimplification as it's wrong-headed through and through. To say it's an oversimplification is overtly simple-minded. Margulis and Sagan say it's merely an oversimplification since they too once sipped at the holy fount that at one time was thought able to free the un-spiritual mind from the demonic idea of a divine creator. . . Alas, that time has past.

Enlightened science will, from here on out, focus on the two primary species favored in the struggle to defeat death: the Jew, and the Christian. Margulis, Sagan, Dawkins, and Smith, et.al., and or their students, will have to learn something about the Torah, the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Apostolic Writings, and the Gospels, if they want to speak of actual scientific principles in good company without giggles and snickers from their peers.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he’s a new creature, a new species, the old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:17.

John

Please, show us a quote where Margulis/Sagan turn to the Bible to support their approach...

Bear Wild · Sep 5, 2021

beenherebeforeagain said:
Please, show us a quote where Margulis/Sagan turn to the Bible to support their approach...

HE can't because they don't. They are proponents of evolution just have an an emphasis on symbiotic acquisition in a genome. But this is classic misuse of information for creationists and ID people. Nothing new in our age of conspiracy theories.

viole · Sep 5, 2021

John D. Brey said:
. . . Or the Preservation of Favored Species in the Struggle to Defeat Death.

In this book we have questioned the adequacy of the modern evolutionist explanation of the origins of new, heritable features of life and the evolution of new species and higher more inclusive taxa. The reliance on the accumulation of random mutations in DNA is not so much "wrong" as oversimplified and incomplete . . . Richard Dawkins, J. Maynard Smith, or at least their students --- will have to learn something about chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, paleontology, and the air.

Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, p. 201.

The neo-Darwinian reliance on the accumulation of random mutations in DNA is not so much an oversimplification as it's wrong-headed through and through. To say it's an oversimplification is overtly simple-minded. Margulis and Sagan say it's merely an oversimplification since they too once sipped at the holy fount that at one time was thought able to free the un-spiritual mind from the demonic idea of a divine creator. . . Alas, that time has past.

Enlightened science will, from here on out, focus on the two primary species favored in the struggle to defeat death: the Jew, and the Christian. Margulis, Sagan, Dawkins, and Smith, et.al., and or their students, will have to learn something about the Torah, the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Apostolic Writings, and the Gospels, if they want to speak of actual scientific principles in good company without giggles and snickers from their peers.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he’s a new creature, a new species, the old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:17.

John

Are you talking of that book positing that water existed before the stars? Why on earth should modern science take inspiration from those ancient myths?

apart from giving some needed consolation and intellectual respectability to extant believers in those ancient myths, of course.

ciao

- viole

John D. Brey · Sep 5, 2021

Shadow Wolf said:
We're still on you thinking males and females are different species before we can get to this point.
And quoting a 30 year old book? We have learned much about chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, paleontology, and even the air since then.

We know that the so-called male of the species is actually a deformed, or in less judgmental terms, transformed, female. Which is to say that we know that every ovum starts out female, and only begins its ugly deformation, or in less connotative parlance, transformation, at the point where alien chromosomes start the transition from the natural female body to the ugly bi-gendered female body: the so-called male. The male is merely an ugly female. And I say that having looked at one in the mirror a myriad of times.

Up until the birth of Christ, every organism that ever existed was either female (all the original organisms) or bi-gendered female (the sexualized species). But at the birth of Christ, the first actual speciation-event in history took place when the first actual male in the universe was born of a virgin pregnancy so that he came out of a bi-gendered species apart from the normal way that species procreates. Which is to say his birth was the speciation-event par excellent.

We can say that his birth was the first, and most excellent, speciation-event, merely by correcting scientific prejudice to note that at the highest taxonomic scale, species, the true definition is female (every creature outside of Christ) and male (Christ alone).

All other distinctions, ape, peacock, man, etc., are part of a "genus" and not a species. The only two species are female and male. Which is why Christ's birth is recognized by the majority of every Western man and woman who ever lived as the central event in the evolution of life.

So central, so important, to the evolution of life, is the speciation-event recorded in the Gospels as the birth of Christ, that literally billions of human beings all over the globe, recognizing this fact, at some psychic level, wear the emblem of the cross, or the crucifix, over their heart, marking themselves as one of those begging to enter into the new kingdom, the new life, the new man, through recognition of the singular speciation-event that will be recognized by God at the resurrection of the Church.

The wearing of the cross is a desperate: "Take me, take me . . . please . . . pick me," directed toward the first living organism to hold out his holey hand and say "NO" to death itself; it's a heart-felt appeal to the only living thing in the universe that is truly a "he" and not in fact a "he/she."

John

Dan From Smithville · Sep 5, 2021

John D. Brey said:
We know that the so-called male of the species is actually a deformed, or in less judgmental terms, transformed, female. Which is to say that we know that every ovum starts out female, and only begins its ugly deformation, or in less connotative parlance, transformation, at the point where alien chromosomes start the transition from the natural female body to the ugly bi-gendered female body: the so-called male. The male is merely an ugly female. And I say that having looked at one in the mirror a myriad of times.

Up until the birth of Christ, every organism that ever existed was either female (all the original organisms) or bi-gendered female (the sexualized species). But at the birth of Christ, the first actual speciation-event in history took place when the first actual male in the universe was born of a virgin pregnancy so that he came out of a bi-gendered species apart from the normal way that species procreates. Which is to say his birth was the speciation-event par excellent.

We can say that his birth was the first, and most excellent, speciation-event, merely by correcting scientific prejudice to note that at the highest taxonomic scale, species, the true definition is female (every creature outside of Christ) and male (Christ alone).

All other distinctions, ape, peacock, man, etc., are part of a "genus" and not a species. The only two species are female and male. Which is why Christ's birth is recognized by the majority of every Western man and woman who ever lived as the central event in the evolution of life.

So central, so important, to the evolution of life, is the speciation-event recorded in the Gospels as the birth of Christ, that literally billions of human beings all over the globe, recognizing this fact, at some psychic level, wear the emblem of the cross, or the crucifix, over their heart, marking themselves as one of those begging to enter into the new kingdom, the new life, the new man, through recognition of the singular speciation-event that will be recognized by God at the resurrection of the Church.

The wearing of the cross is a desperate: "Take me, take me . . . please . . . pick me," directed toward the first living organism to hold out his holey hand and say "NO" to death itself; it's a heart-felt appeal to the only living thing in the universe that is truly a "he" and not in fact a "he/she."

John

Confused, anti-science, misandrist rubbish.

John D. Brey · Sep 5, 2021

Wild Fox said:
There is so much wrong in what you present. The book you start with accepts random mutations as an essential part of the theory of evolution. There argument is that we need to also better understand the other mechanisms that affect evolution. There are multiple additional ways both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that are important. Neo-Darwinism is not wrong headed nor simple minded. Your post is wrong headed and simple minded. Learn evolution before you say over simplistic in correct statements.

Neo-Darwinism, and probably Dawinism proper, since they reject supernatural design, direction, in the evolution of life, needed to posit some reasonable way that evolving organisms could go from extremely simple forms of life, to organism with human-like eyes, cerebral cortex, and such. The only possibility they could find, apart from some kind of supernatural, non-physical, guidance, guider, or designer, was the truly simple-minded idea that mutations that benefited an organism in a particular environmental setting could, would, lead to more complex and useful design elements within the organism.

No one laughed Dawkins, Dennett, Maynard Smith, et.al., off the stage when they presented this truly asinine theory. No one refused to publish books spouting sheer stupidity. On the contrary. They were best-sellers and these men were applauded as great purveyors of modern science when they're nothing but charlatans and liars.

This idea of the blind-watchmaker is completely and utterly wrong, impossible, on every philosophical, scientific, theological, and logical account. The fact that thinking men and women flocked to such a base, wrong-headed, theory, merely shows the desperation this ungodly civillization has to convince themselves that Christ didn't begin their demise in the creation of a the first new, non-female, species.

What is worse is you are claiming that Christians and Jews are a different species. The statement [t]hate Christ is a new species is pure fantasy unless you are claiming you have found the body of Jesus and now have evidence Jesus is not genetically human.

A verse in the Tanakh, Isaiah 52:14, is repeated throughout Jewish and Christian thought. An examination of it implies that it speaks precisely of what you note above:

. . . he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted though many will be appalled by him since his appearance is disfigured in comparison with all other men. His form is not even of the natural human likeness. From this unnatural form comes his power to sprinkle many nations. Kings will step aside at the mention of his name and his appearance for what has been evolving since the beginning of life itself they will get to see with their own eyes.

Rashi said the Hebrew of the verse implies that the suffering servant isn't recognized genus "man." And Luther said that the Hebrew implies that when this man is lifted up naked, the persons seeing him naked, will be aghast, as though they're seeing something never before seen in the history of humanity.

What they saw was the first speciation-event in the history of biological life: the first genuine male, versus the normal, natural, bi-gendered female.

John

John D. Brey · Sep 5, 2021

beenherebeforeagain said:
Please, show us a quote where Margulis/Sagan turn to the Bible to support their approach...

On the contrary. As the thread-seeder noted, they too were once drunk on the idea that evolution of eye-balls and brains could occur naturally, without guidance or design, through random means.

We who knew all along the desperation involved in such idiocy could only hardly hold our tongue, out of love for our simple-minded brothers and sisters, when such asininity was thrown in our face over and over again.

Even today, most arm-chair science-types believe a human brain, which Phd. physicists and biologists call the most complex 3 or 4 pounds of matter in the entire universe, is an accident of nature: came about randomly, accidentally, incidental to any thought, design, or plan.

Daniel Dennett, finally concedes that the human mind produced by, or parasiting the human brain, transcends evolution itself. How on earth can an agnostic dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist and former neo-Darwinist say such a thing? Easy. He now says that the freedom from the laws of nature that the human mind clearly possesses, get this, evolved. Something he concedes is beyond natural account, get this, evolved naturally.

Naturally it did. Of course it did. How else could it have occurred?

John

John D. Brey · Sep 5, 2021

Wild Fox said:
HE can't because they don't. They are proponents of evolution just have an an emphasis on symbiotic acquisition in a genome. But this is classic misuse of information for creationists and ID people. Nothing new in our age of conspiracy theories.

In fairness to the truth of the matter, they merely kick the can down the road. Since they know random mutations are a dead-end, they take a fork in the road before they get to that dead-end and say, maybe by combining, symbiotically, design-characteristics already present in two distinct organisms, we can create a leap to a third, better adapted, organism, or organ.

All they do, and it's as vapid as random mutations, is imply that the combination of two kinds of design, in two separate genus, can combine to form a more complex, better designed, organism or organ. They don't even take a stab at design complexity since they've been down that road. And they haven't read the bible enough not to go down that dead-end, nor take the fork in the road, but, rather go straight.

It's nothing more than smoke and mirrors or the shell-game presented as scientific acumen.

John

Shadow Wolf · Sep 5, 2021

John D. Brey said:
All other distinctions, ape, peacock, man, etc., are part of a "genus" and not a species. The only two species are female and male.

Yeah. Exactly. You are so far away from science and basically biology that this doesn't work. Apes, peacocks, and humans cannot reproduce with eachother, meaning different species.
And, again, males amd females of the same species are of the same species.

John D. Brey · Sep 5, 2021

viole said:
Are you talking of that book positing that water existed before the stars? Why on earth should modern science take inspiration from those ancient myths?

Myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Google Dictionary.

I realize that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all----or very nearly all----scientific theories originate from myths . . ..

Conjectures and Refutations, p. 38.

A critical [scientific] attitude needs for its raw material, as it were, theories or beliefs which are held more or less dogmatically. Thus, science must start with myths, and with the criticism of myths . . ..

Conjectures and Refutations p. 50.

In fairness to your query, it's important to understand the nature of ancient myths. They don't function like a Richard Dawkins treatise. They're complex deductions situated in the conceptualism of the time of writing, though they record, archive, the true fundamentals of life, evolution, God, women, and men.

I'm willing to do a thread on you assertion that the Bible claims water came before the stars. I've examined such claims in the original language of the Hebrew, in the context of the myth, and they are idiotic simplifications given by people who also believe the human brain is a product of random accidents. I mean hell, given a few billions years, surely random accidents can do just about anything can't they?

Unfortunately no, they can't.

John

John D. Brey · Sep 5, 2021

Shadow Wolf said:
Yeah. Exactly. You are so far away from science and basically biology that this doesn't work.

You mean the science and biology that claims the human brain is an accident of fate, a neat collection of billions, or trillions, of random accidents?

Yes. I'm very far away from that science. It's day is here. It's not been selected by natural selection to make it through to the next decade. . . You're being treated to the new reality that will see the end of a science still clothed in the thinking of agnostic neanderthals. Every scientist in the new world will be a theist. Non-theists, if they exist, will be seen on murals, or natural history museums, or maybe even zoos? That's how peculiar the current scientific orthodoxy will seem when the first and last he man returns.

John

It Aint Necessarily So · Sep 5, 2021

John D. Brey said:
But without the facts, and truth, of this thread, its all ya all got. I'm sorry about that. I really am. But not as sorry as those who turn the other way when banality is presented as sound science will be when the only he man ever born returns.

Sorry, but God just spoke to me and told me that you are wrong, and that the penalty for slandering Him and the work He has done using genetic variation and natural selection to generate the tree of life is that your name has been dropped from some book.

It's true. God told me to tell you. Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.

Shadow Wolf · Sep 5, 2021

John D. Brey said:
You mean the science and biology that claims the human brain is an accident of fate, a neat collection of billions, or trillions, of random accidents?

Yes. I'm very far away from that science. It's day is here. It's not been selected by natural selection to make it through to the next decade. . . You're being treated to the new reality that will see the end of a science still clothed in the thinking of agnostic neanderthals. Every scientist in the new world will be a theist. Non-theists, if they exist, will be seen on murals, or natural history museums, or maybe even zoos? That's how peculiar the current scientific orthodoxy will seem when the first and last he man returns.

John

I would push all in amd bet everything against this idea you postulate. Science as we know it will still be here by 2030.
I'd triple the wager that evolution has changed very little as we now know it by 3030.

beenherebeforeagain · Sep 5, 2021

John D. Brey said:
On the contrary. As the thread-seeder noted, they too were once drunk on the idea that evolution of eye-balls and brains could occur naturally, without guidance or design, through random means.

We who knew all along the desperation involved in such idiocy could only hardly hold our tongue, out of love for our simple-minded brothers and sisters, when such asininity was thrown in our face over and over again.

Even today, most arm-chair science-types believe a human brain, which Phd. physicists and biologists call the most complex 3 or 4 pounds of matter in the entire universe, is an accident of nature: came about randomly, accidentally, incidental to any thought, design, or plan.

Daniel Dennett, finally concedes that the human mind produced by, or parasiting the human brain, transcends evolution itself. How on earth can an agnostic dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist and former neo-Darwinist say such a thing? Easy. He now says that the freedom from the laws of nature that the human mind clearly possesses, get this, evolved. Something he concedes is beyond natural account, get this, evolved naturally.

Naturally it did. Of course it did. How else could it have occurred?

John

"they too were once drunk on the idea that evolution"

So, even though Margulis/Sagan don't actually support ANYTHING that you are saying, it's okay for you to quote them because they say that there must be a change in theories of evolution?

As for the rest, as has been pointed out by others, what you present is bull ****.

John D. Brey · Sep 5, 2021

beenherebeforeagain said:
"they too were once drunk on the idea that evolution"

So, even though Margulis/Sagan don't actually support ANYTHING that you are saying, it's okay for you to quote them because they say that there must be a change in theories of evolution?

In my opinion, Margulis and Sagan are in the same boat as Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and perhaps you: trying to explain away design as some accidental, or epiphenomenal, feces of nature and her mindless principles.

The foundational problem of Darwinism is that it's trying to explain design without a designer.

In thirty-years of dialoging with Darwinists, and neo-Darwinists, one thing was clear, they needed to believe in some random, thoughtless, means at arriving at profound design, like eyes, and brains, since they don't believe in a creator or designer be he an old dude with a long beard, or an invisible, supernatural, spirit, guiding physical things to their future fate.

John

John D. Brey · Sep 5, 2021

Shadow Wolf said:
I would push all in amd bet everything against this idea you postulate. Science as we know it will still be here by 2030.
I'd triple the wager that evolution has changed very little as we now know it by 3030.

. . . Something that will make the Cambrian explosion, or any other great evolutionary explosion, look like a wet fizzling firecracker is probably in your foreseeable future. If so, you will see it, feel it, experience it, be that experience unimaginable awe, or un-thikable terror. I suspect it will elicit both depending on the viewer. Suffice it to say, no one sees it coming.

John

Shadow Wolf · Sep 5, 2021

John D. Brey said:
Suffice it to say, no one sees it coming.

That's about all I really need to know. If it was coming people would see it, like we see an increased robotic workforce in the foreseeable future and beyond.

ON THE DESTINATION OF SPECIES: by Means of Supernatural Selection,

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Rogue Animist

Well-Known Member

Ontological Naturalist

Well-Known Member

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Certified People sTabber

Rogue Animist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber