I may have overreacted to what in the end is routine Darwnist confusion, ‘idiocy’ is a harsh word. But I doubt if biologists as current have any right or opportunity to seed life on distant planets. At this primitive stage of civilization the idea is obviously unrealizable: you could never reach such planets. Sigh of relief.
The software evolution idea is a good one, maybe, but a study of the eonic effect might help to see that some alien civilization just may have seeded human evolution on this planet, and their ‘programming’ is so far ahead of anything current as to induce shudders at the ideas current in imitation.
To the extent we can decipher it, macroevolution (taken as programmed evolution) is a machine that is teleological, operates (in this case of man and civilization), operates over ten thousand years on the surface of a planet, seeds virtually everything, induces art, science, philosophy, gives feedback over millennia, has a mysterious ethical and aesthetic mechanics, is able to sift literary works over centuries (cf. the Homeric, and Hebraic corpus), stands behind most discoveries, most art forms, etc, etc…
There is a suspicion that every advance in human is macro induction, and all the failure due to man.
Perhpas man is learning and will jump to a new level, but the idea of natural selection as the source of human evolution is grotesque, and it is so oddly strange it persists still after so much feedback and critique.
Study world history with the eonic model as a tool, crude in its own way, and look at the way ‘evolution’ showers man with gifts and he turns around and takes evolution as a social Darwinist survival of the fittest routine.
It is hard to think of a more worthless bum steer that natural selection as the key to evolution.
Source: We’re teaching robots to evolve autonomously – so they can adapt to life alone on distant planets
