> > The "force" there is stronger than the mind,
> > obviously you cannot see it! That is very sad indeed...
>
> If you're talking about real love, I definitely believe in that. But, the whole process
> of procreation is, in fact, a biological function that is repeated all day long amongst
> billions of different lifeforms.

You must be joking! Biology is nothing more than the study of carbon chemistry and complex carbon forms...

You are looking at reality in a box!!!

> Do you make a distinction between animals, human, bacteria, and plants as well?

Only on the level of complexity and the various energy layers of integration...

> > Look, it is a strong force of attraction and it
> > is stronger than the mind...
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that there is such a thing as strong forces of attraction.
> However, that has very little to do with the biological function of reproduction.

Sorry, but biology is pretty much irrelevant, it just shows the effects and not the causes...

I don't necessarily want to 'minimize' your area of expertize, but enough is enough!!!

> > Of course, but they are still bacteria. The
> > bacteria didn't "evolve" to become an insect or
> > something else...
>
> Yes, there are still bacteria but do you realize that you have what was once an
> independent lifeform living in every cell of your body? That you are, in fact,
> composed of a great deal of bacteria that live in symbiosis with you?

Of course, it is a networking system! That is exactly my point...

As a matter of fact, there is more foreign bacteria and viral DNA in a human body than human DNA...

Therefore, in order to stay alive, the system needs to stay in balance...or good health, in other words...

> > > Yes, what this planet is today is the product
> > > of billions of years of evolution.
> >
> > That says nothing at all. It is a very silly sentence and statement.
>
> Why is it silly? The fact that this planet has been around for billions of years?

No, the fact that your statement adds no value, it is irrelevant. You try to use the word 'evolution' to try to convey some information that it simply does not...

I could also say, what this planet is today is the product of energy transfers thoughout eternity. That, of course, is bigger than billions of years and still says nothing much...

> > "Accumulated", that makes no sense either!
>
> Yes, accumulated change. Why does that make no sense to you?

Change is change based on action-reaction in real time. It is not being 'accumulated' in the sense of pile up or collect!!!

> > All that I know is that reality is cyclical and
> > programmed via action-reaction, but I do not
> > make up stories and tales over long periods of
> > time since that is pretty much irrelevant because
> > cycles repeat themselves...
>
> If that is all you know, then how can you be certain, without researching the subject at
> least adequately, if evolution and science in general are made up stories and tales?

Because they don't truly reflect the cycles of Nature and use laws of average that flatten out the results in a false manner (make them linear)...

Note that I didn't say that "science" in general is made up of stories and tales! My comments were very specific towards "evolution" and only towards evolution and that also includes my comments regarding "all that I know"...

For some reason you seem to have a tendency to twist my words!!!!

> No, it's not speculation when scientists can watch things evolve today. Evolution
> isn't something that necessarily stops. It is a constant process that I have already
> pointed as being well documented in lifeforms with shorter lifespans, ie bacteria and
> insects.

Like I said before, all that they are watching is 'mutations' and not evolution! The bacteria and insects are not becoming a new species !!!!!!!

> > > Do you know what a gene pool is?
> >
> > A pool of genes...
>
> No, it is the sum of all genetic information carried by members of a population.

Come on, please note that I was joking on that one...

> Basically, what this means is that all the genetic information in a given population
> composes the potential variations for that population. The greater the gene pool,
> the more genetic diversity. The smaller the gene pool, the more likely that mutations
> will occur. This is a problem that many animal conservationists are worried about in
> regards to endangered species.

So, they are trying to stop mutations!? That is bizarre at best!!!

Species will continue to be wiped out just like always. You cannot stop this natural reality...

> > There you go with your silly extrapolations! Most
> > of that gene pool will be wiped out again like it
> > always is during every age/era macro cycle...
>
> This is not a silly extrapolation and the gene pool has never been entirely wiped out.

Of course, this is why some species have survived...

> There have been periods where mass die offs have occurred but not all life died.
> A great deal survived.

That is also what I am saying, but I am also saying that this is what will continue to happen. This is a much more realistic extrapolation...

> > Extinctions will continue. What makes you think
> > that they will stop!?
>
> Where did I say that extinctions will stop? I didn't. In fact, alot of the present
> day concern is that encroachment on wildlife areas is resulting in the extinction
> of many animals, plants and insects.

Why the concern!? That is what has been happening for billions of years, so why would it be any different today!!!???

> > My arguments are good, so obviously my science must be better...
>
> Unfortunately, Wireless, there is very little science to your ideas. You are basing
> your ideas on gut feelings, philosophies and beliefs.

You certainly wish, but, of course that is only your feelings, philosophies and beliefs, saying that nonsense...

> That isn't science, Wireless, and until you actually do some studying on biology,
> ecology, climatology and genetics, it will never be a science.

WOW!!! That is weird at best!!!

For some silly 'reason' you really think that is the only science! LOL

What about computer science, wave and information theory, math, chemistry, physics, etc, etc. The way that I see it, biology is the the limited science since it is only looking at the carbon chemistry...

You must have your head in a box! No wonder your reality reference is polluted...

> You call doing so as potentially "polluting" your mind. All you are doing, Wireless, is
> closing it.

No way! I am very opne minded towards carbon chemistry and carbon based life forms, but that is certainly not where I 'limit' my own reality references... lol

As a matter of fact, I would rather not pollute my mind with too much carbon chemistry...

> And education is not polluting one's mind. The real problem is that you refuse to see
> evidence that perhaps may be contrary to your personal beliefs and, therefore, you think
> that you are a proponent of a "better science". There are centuries worth of evidence
> that support evolution...

Note really. Most evidence actually supports the cyclical aspects of Nature and not linear evolution and your average calculations over long periods of time...As I see it from outside your box, linear evolution is basically wrong, but, of course, you can continue to "believe" in it...

Education pollutes the mind when it teaches kids wrong and silly close minded evolution theories...

> Actually, it has everything to do with reproduction. Ever heard of caesarean sections?
> See, previously if a baby was in breach or unable to pass through the birth canal,
> the mother and child died. I have had two c-sections to deliver both my son and daughter.
> Without this bit of medical technology, my son and I would have both died in labor and
> my daughter would never be born.

Hurray for the "intelligence" that gaves us medical technology...

No wonder I have always been a very big fan of the "intelligence" factor...

> Intelligence is not a minimal thing to evolution at all. Who is going to survive better...
> a man who can build a shelter to protect himself from a snowstorm or one who is too dumb
> to even take cover?

Of course, that is also why I am a very big fan of "intelligence" designs...

The man with the intelligence that can "design" and built the shelter has an higher probability of survival...

> > Well, I think that you are confusing things.
> > Survival of the species has everything to do with
> > reproduction and not with the extension of a
> > single life!
>
> Every single life that continues on and carries on adds to the population of any given
> species. Look at endangered species. The greatest risk to these species is the diminished
> population and genetic diversity. A single life does have impact on the greater whole.

Of course, I don't deny that every single life has a contribution, what I was saying is that survival of the species has to do primarily with the reproduction because every single life will die out and the species will cease to exist if it didn't reproduce and continues to reproduce...

> I won't argue this however one does have to wonder whether or not my being able to
> reproduce is necessarily a good thing for the human race. It becomes unnatural.

Well, then the human race will stop from existing...One cannot sustain artificial life for too long, specially in times of great Earth changes...

> > Well, you are twisting what I am saying!
> > Sneakiness IS a form of intelligence and so is
> > medical technology...
>
> Okay, now you are twisting your own words...the weaker, less intelligent are
> forced to be sneaky and devious to survive yet sneakiness is a form of intelligence?
> Which is it? Medical technology is sneaky?

Well, please note that I never said that the weaker were also less intelligent! You are going around in circles now...

Sneakiness is definitely a degenerated form of intelligence and that is a fact...

Medical technology is not necessarily sneaky. Note that I try to only use straight and forward logic and not reverse, twisted or circular logic...

> > Before medical technology, the weaker would need
> > to be either sneak (like parasites) or highly
> > protected (like of a priest class or something
> > like that) in order to survive...
>
> lol, evidence?

There is plenty of evidence of this throughout History, look at all the priest and higher classes or the "protected" ones...

I am truly surprised that you are just learning this most basic of concepts...

> > Well, I think that I am. But, I will add the
> > element of "protection" to that also...
>
> What "protection"?

WOW!!! I am truly amazed that you still cannot see how the higher classes have protected themselves throughout the years...

> > But the combination of strength and intelligence
> > does...One needs both. However, strength or
> > force is always more important...
>
> There we can somewhat agree though it is not necessarily strength but good health.

Strength IS good health. It truly reflects balance in the body, mind and Soul...

Usually when someone is out of balance he/she will get sick...

+-wirelessguru1