To follow a comment I received from a regular commenter on this blog and then my response:
Comment:
The “evolutionary level above human” is a mis-use of the term “evolutionary”… evolution uses natural selection to hone all creatures great and small… evolution requires a link between creature A and more advanced creature B.
Of course there are gaps in the evolutionary record, but with interpolation we can connect the dots and it all fits together like a glove. So elegantly!!!
What you folks talk about is maybe a colloquial use of the word “evolution” (a scientific term btw… I thought you didn’t believe in science/proof — space aliens and all)
But what you folks talk about is not evolutiion — not even metamorphosis (another term used frequently on the tapes).
Maybe originally, Do thought of it in terms of evolution — but obviously, suicide isn’t nature’s way of evolving… it is nature’s way of aborting defective genes if it has any evolutionary value at all … those 39 people can’t breed now you see).
Instead of “evolutionary level above human”, you could use the term “afterlife” maybe… or the “dimension above human”… “dimension” is more math-like than science-y….. these avoids the embarrasssing reference to science and keeps it firmly in the realm of spirit/superstition/religion.
Did you learn any alien words? I’m surprised Do didn’t make up a word.
Sawyer’s response:
Ti and Do were speaking of an “evolution” of both mind and body. The human kingdom is a level of life. They said there was a mineral kingdom, a plant kingdom, an animal kingdom, a human kingdom and the level above human kingdom. They said it was ALL physical. All Kingdom levels have physical bodies. They said that the base kingdom levels have less individualistic “minds/spirits”. They said the animal kingdom do have “spirits” that exist after death of their physical body. They said a Next Level Above Human physical body was grown on a vine, hence no need for human/mammalian reproduction. It is a misunderstanding to say I and they “didn’t believe in science/proof — space aliens and all”. I have no idea where you got this idea but it’s not unusual to miss a great deal when we read and listen to points of view we don’t tend to want to consider belief of.
As you said, “…interpolation we can connect the dots and it all fits together like a glove.” which is what everyone tends to do when they explore and have a mindset to attempt to justify. I say that all the time about what I believe and in some respects have seen where I was wrong just as those who explore Darwinian hypothesis often see where it and they are wrong. When my stepdaughter was in physics class in high school she would tell me about the Galapolos island birds beaks adapting to crack harder nuts to survive. I wondered why they didn’t just eat bugs instead of working so hard to get the nuts. But maybe they were not so inclined but contrary to what you say about that archaic mindset fitting together like a glove, I find with simple logic it hardly fits at all except in relatively minor ways. Certainly adaptability is prevalent in all species but there is no evidence that demonstrates how species change. If you know of evidence that one doesn’t have to go to University to memorize new terms and ideas to comprehend as logical then please share the links with me.
Here are some of my questions?
What stimulated a cell to make cilium into fins if that’s the idea? Couldn’t the cell move around and survive without doing so? Or did it occur in some other way. What is the science on this?
Likewise what stimulated a sea creature with fins to morph those fins into legs like a crab or did the legs come from the cell before the fins?
One can imagine that the water dried up so the finned creature was flopping around on dry land trying to live and in doing so used it’s fins and learned it could move along by pushing against the land but then by the time it could reproduce having learned that it would have died from asphyxiation. Share with me the ideas on how the mutations come about. Does it take a meteor with radioactive particles to land in the ocean to cause genetic mutation? And if so how does the mutation sort itself through all the various forms of mutation it would randomly encounter to arrive at the one that it theoretically advances it’s survival. I am aware that bacteria communicate with one another and learn and in that way grow and spread and perhaps strengthen themselves in that regard but if they simply become stronger by conquering instead of being defeated, why would they start to develop new systems and structures. If we exercise our muscles and they become stronger muscles does any amount of exercise cause them to organize into a heart versus a thigh cell. It seems to believe that cells can organize into different organs that then can be the building blocks of more complex systems and organisms would require a great deal of intelligent decision making and trial and error application.
And what about wings. What would be the motivation to grow fins into wings or legs into wings or cilium into wings, fish, reptile or insect.
If humans are the top of the evolutionary chain than how come humans don’t have the best of all creatures? Why don’t humans have wings or at least some of them. Wouldn’t they have them to get rid of them. What environmental factors could stimulate that. Does the fish see the bird and desire to fly? Or does the bird see the fish and desire to swim. In that case, since we see birds that do dive into the water for fish and sometimes fish will jump out of the sea to eat a bird but that hardly results in mutations of one another’s species to the other?
And why do humans not smell as good as dogs or run as fast as cheetahs?
What stimulated four legged mammals to start to want to stand up like monkeys? It slowed them down so couldn’t have been to better escape and there are plenty of rodents that can climb trees with four legs to get food in a tree and/or to escape a predator that can’t climb as well or as fast.
Are there computer models to suggest some answers to these questions?
Where did random evolution “decide” to put more stock into Mind development to solve problems rather than growing stronger legs or better smell or better taste and hearing and sight and perception.
And the eye. How in the world did the eye randomly evolve. What evidence of an eye is in any one cell. And what determines how many eyes are more useful. Wouldn’t it be more useful for all creatures to have eyes all over the place if it could save them from being eaten or for finding food or one’s mate or shelter? Why do horseshoe crabs have 11 eyes? Why wouldn’t some have 2, 3, 4, 10 working their way to 11 and why stop at 11? And what determines where to place those eyes? Why put an eye on the tail when it’s thought the tail is only for turning itself over or does it help to see a predator so to raise it up. Or is the presence of an eye on the tail a way of looking at a predator in the eye to scare it off in more ways than one. What amphipian or mammal would feel threatned by a horseshoe crab’s raised tail?
If all of what we know as life came about by random response to stimuli or lack of from other creatures and/or the environment’s weather conditions and food growth why do humans do so many things that seem to reverse their survival that some learn from and others don’t and why is it that the ones that don’t learn seem to dominate the ones that do.
For instance who has a better chance of surviving – a human with a gun or a human with a peace sign when confronted by something threatening their life. How did negotiation come to be seen as more evolved?
Why do so many on all sides of the fence believe it wrong to kill another human? Why is that wrong. If I can have more of what I want that I determine I NEED then why not just take it, steal it and kill to get it? Those who do that survive longer don’t they?
Isn’t that actually the example we see in history in the domineering empires? The meek become the victims of the predators just like the deer to the lion.
If the MIND is part of evolution as evidenced by humans using their mind in ways that animals don’t seem able though animals do show a great deal of mind development, just not to the degree of a human, while in some ways it seems what humans call mind development to an animal would seem counterproductive. For instance what value is there evolutionarily to art and sports and philosophy and space exploration and getting “high” and sex for pleasure alone? What’s the point of happiness based on what we are taught by society brings happiness? Does it increase anyone lifespans significantly more so than happiness derived from having adequate food, air, water and shelter from the elements and predators?
Why is it that humans seem to be “evolving” to require more and more to be content and satisfied? Why has survival of the fittest become a mindset?
If all life evolved from particles that originated in space from a big bang to the human condition to where humans began to build things from those same particles (counting life as actually everything as every particle is in process of changing by ion exchange however detectible, etc.) that they did not actually provide then shouldn’t humans have in their genetic memory all they went through to get to their current state so that they should be able to have all the answers to these questions as it’s like a computer that simply kept gathering data as it expanded it’s database?
Why is it that we die? Doesn’t science tell us that all our cells are replacing one another every moment of every day of our lives. What tells them to slow down and result in aging and wrinkles and saging flesh at a predictable age?
Isn’t it interesting that in the ancient records it was said that after a major flood that wiped out most life in a certain vicinity that there was a directive that humans would be limited to 120 years old when before that there were many who recorded ages up til 900 years old when they knew well how to count sun cycles and even write in various ways that archology easily documents AND since then it’s rare that anyone lives more than that 120. Is that evidence that whoever gave that directive knew something we still don’t understand?
Isn’t there a little logic in the facts that humans can take elements they did not provide and can make intricate machines from, that humans themselves as intricate machines would have likely come about in a similar way, with the same kind of effort and designed intelligence by beings more evolved than humans?
Why do humans have to be the top of the food chain and why do we see constant updates to even our physics throughout history yet some insist there can no longer be further updates. For instance a professor of physics scoffed at that idea that there could be additional elements to the periodic table, yet with particle bombardment at CERN and in nuke reactors they are creating new elements with different atomic weights?
Isn’t the evidence that we are NOT the top of the heap in any respect overwhelming but requires a more evolved mind to perceive as reality that starts by being willing to consider just as one had to be willing to think there are things that are real that at one time couldn’t be seen – like the composition of particles saturating our environment yet unseen, and frequency “data” structures shooting through the particle filled air?
Sawyer Stands for Ti & Do's Heaven's Gate 