Posted: Jun 13, 2014 9:26 am
kennyc wrote:I almost don't know where to start with this load of shit.
I would have started by breaking my post into bite sized chunks and answering each in turn. By not telling me what you see as flaws in my post, instead cherry picking pieces makes structured process harder.
kennyc wrote:Power/Control sits "below" evolution? You mean it is more fundamental? That 'power' 'drives' evolution?
I would say that it defines and underlies evolution. A fundamental requirement for evolution is enough control to survive and procreate. Any organism that has no control over outcomes that favour it will not survive to procreate.
kennyc wrote:and as far as non-living things wanting to control shit? WTF?Sure there are laws of physics, but it has nothing to do with power or desire to control anything, it just simply a law of nature.
I am anthropomorphising here and using these terms to describe the behaviour and am not suggesting that inanimates have volition. If we accept that life sustains because of its ability to achieve those things that keep it alive and able to procreate, and we accept the premise that life evolved from a specific combination of non living elements, and possibly through some process that we don’t have a clear idea of – then those elements were also able to remain in existence, probably at the expense of others, through simple chemical and physical laws. Chemistry shows us that molecules form bonds through specific affinities and chemical processes, and despite the levels that we have risen to as humans, essentially the same chemical processes operate in us and keep us alive. Since I am being reductive here, its logical to assume that a tendency to survive or sustain would have been heritable through the entire existence of life and also through the stage inanimate elements to early life.